(a) Notice of imposition of property tax to the joint mining right representative shall have the effect on other mining right holders;

(b) Effect of a public auction disposition by notifying the joint mining right representative of attachment and failing to notify other mining right holders of attachment;

(a) The joint mining right representative’s power to represent the State in Article 26(1) and (5) of the Mining Industry Act includes the right to receive the notice of imposition and demand of taxes on mining rights.

B. Even if a public auction is conducted without notifying the remaining mining right holders of attachment as long as the notification of attachment was given to the joint mining right representatives, such public auction disposition cannot be deemed as a grave and obvious defect.

Article 26 of the Mining Industry Act, Articles 51 and 68 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu124 delivered on December 18, 1967

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Lieutenant Guns of Jungwon

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' legal representative confirms that a public auction disposition against the defendant's mining right of 3,30 won in the amount of local tax as of December 2, 1966, which was issued against the plaintiffs' registration number No. 13329, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheong-si, Chungcheong-si, the gold, silver, 998,600, is invalid.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the above mining right stated in the purport of the claim is jointly owned by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and Eul No. 1, 2, Eul No. 3 and 4, and the defendant, as of February 20, 1966, is the joint mining right holder's representative, and 4,730 won (3,420 won for the mining area of this case, and 1,410 won for other mining areas) shall be imposed upon the plaintiff No. 1, who was the joint representative of the mining area of this case, with the payment notice of the property tax at the time of the above plaintiff No. 166, which was delivered by public notice at the time of notification No. 166,966, which was delivered by public notice at the time of notification No. 1666, Jan. 6, 196).

According to Article 26 (1) and (5) of the Mining Industry Act, the representative of the joint mining right has the right to represent the joint mining right holder against the State. This right of representation of the joint mining right representative shall be interpreted as including the right to represent the joint mining right holder in the case where the property tax is imposed on the mining right. Thus, it shall be interpreted that the tax official's notification of payment of the property tax on the mining right includes the right to represent the joint mining right holder. When the tax official notifies the joint mining right payment and demands the payment of the property tax on the mining right, the tax official's notification of payment or demand shall also take effect on all the joint mining right holders of the other joint mining right. In this case, in imposing the property tax on the above mining right, the defendant has delivered the notice of payment and demand to the plaintiff 1, the joint mining right representative, who is the joint mining right holder, and thus, the payment of the property tax has been notified and urged.

(2) In full view of the contents of Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1,2, Eul evidence Nos. 10, Eul evidence Nos. 11-2, Eul evidence Nos. 11-2, Eul evidence Nos. 12 and 13, the defendant who did not pay the above property tax by the due date for the payment of the property tax, on June 24, 1966, seized the above mining right, and sent the attachment notice to plaintiff Nos. 1, 21,60 won, and thereafter, on Nov. 22, 1966, determined the price for the above mining right No. 9-21,00 won, and determined the price for the above mining right by public auction, and notified the plaintiff that the above purchase price was paid by public auction to the plaintiff Nos. 111,200 as the result of the above public auction, and delivery of the notice to the plaintiff No. 165 of the above auction notice to the plaintiff No. 20.

(3) However, the plaintiff filed a claim for nullification of the above public sale disposition by the defendant on the ground that it is an administrative disposition of invalidity of a grave and obvious defect. (1) The defendant sold the above mining right to the plaintiffs who are joint mining right holders of the above mining right of this case, and (2) even if the plaintiff 1 is the joint mining right representative of the above mining right, the plaintiff 1 does not have the right to dispose of the above mining right independently. Therefore, the defendant should be given notice of attachment or public sale to the plaintiff 2, who is the joint mining right holder of the above mining right, and the above notice of attachment or public sale was not served only on the plaintiff 1, and the public sale of the above plaintiff 2 without all of these notice. (3) The defendant claimed that the above public sale of the mining right of this case was conducted at the market price of the above mining right of 10,000,000 won at the time of the public sale and the above mining right of 100,000 won, more than 30,000 won, more than 300.

(A) However, in imposing the property tax on the above mining right, the defendant decided that the payment of the property tax has been notified and urged for all the plaintiffs who are joint mining right holders by lawfully serving the payment notice and demand notice on the plaintiff 1, who is the joint mining right holder, as above. If the above payment of the property tax has been notified and urged as to the plaintiffs as above (B), the defendant's public sale of the above mining right for the purpose of taking a disposition on default of the property tax, as alleged by the plaintiffs, without notifying the attachment or public sale to the plaintiff 2, who is the joint mining right holder, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the above reasons cannot be deemed as a significant and obvious defect as to the above public sale. (c) Even if the above public sale of the mining right was conducted by serving the notice to the plaintiff 1, who is the joint mining right holder, without notifying the attachment or public sale to the plaintiff 2, who is the joint mining right holder, it is hard to see that the above disposal of the mining right is more than 10,000,000 won.

(4) Therefore, on December 2, 1966, the plaintiff's main claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition on the premise that a public sale order issued against the above mining business as of December 2, 196 is null and void, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 89 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-joon