Whether Article 587(2) or 605 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure for disposition on default (negative)

The difference between the distribution procedure for a compulsory auction on immovables under the Civil Procedure Act and that for a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act is derived from the fact that the procedure for a disposition on default is a procedure for prompt satisfaction of tax claims by an administrative agency, contrary to the judicial resolution by means of satisfaction of general claims concurrent with the compulsory execution procedure. Thus, Article 587(2) of the Civil Procedure Act or Article 605 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on the actual period for supplementation of claims due to a failure to submit a statement of claims, is not applicable mutatis mutandis to the procedure for liquidation in the disposition on default. Therefore, the head of a tax office, as the head of a tax office, shall ex officio determine the amount to be apportioned to the creditors under Article 81(1)

Articles 80, 81(1) and (4), and 83(1) and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act; Articles 587(2), 605, and 653 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu15625 delivered on May 27, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the distribution procedure for a compulsory auction on real estate in the course of compulsory execution, the Civil Procedure Act provides that the creditor shall submit the account statement of the principal, interest, expenses and other incidental claims of the relevant claim not later than the auction date (Article 653(1)); the creditor's claims which have not submitted an account statement shall be calculated in accordance with the purport of a demand for distribution and a statement of reasons therefor; in such cases, the amount of claims shall not be supplemented again; (2) Articles 587(2) and 587(2) of the same Act; (3) the interested parties present on the date of distribution and the creditor demanding a distribution shall be examined to determine a distribution schedule by examining the interested parties present on the date of distribution and the creditor demanding a distribution (Articles 656 and 589(1)); (3) the amount of claims to which an objection has been raised shall be distributed pursuant to the distribution schedule (Articles 658 and 589(3)); and (6) the amount of claims to which an objection has been raised shall be determined by the auction date (Article 650).

On the other hand, with respect to the procedure for liquidation (distribution) in the disposition on default, the head of a tax office shall distribute the money falling under each of the following subparagraphs under the provisions of Article 81 (1) (Article 80), and the money under Article 80 (1) 3 is allocated to the national taxes, surcharges, disposition fees for arrears and other claims falling under each of the following subparagraphs (Article 81 (1) (Article 81 (1)), and the obligation secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge or mortgage relating to the attached property (Article 81 (3)). If the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of the national taxes, surcharges and disposition fees for arrears and other claims under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, the head of a tax office shall prepare the distribution schedule and deliver it to the delinquent taxpayer under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 81 (4)).

As seen above, the difference between both procedures is derived from the point of view that the procedure for disposition on default is the procedure for prompt satisfaction of tax claims by administrative agencies, while the judicial resolution of the repayment of general claims that competes with the compulsory execution procedure is the procedure for prompt satisfaction of tax claims. As such, Article 587(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on the practical period to supplement the amount of claims due to a failure to submit a statement of claims, or Article 605 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on the demand for distribution and its time, shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure for liquidation (distribution) in disposition on default. Accordingly, the head of a tax office shall ex officio determine the amount to

According to the facts established by the court below, it is clear that the amount of the plaintiff's claim as of the date of allocation of the sale price of the real estate of this case is 78,00,000 won or more, which is the maximum debt amount of the plaintiff's right to collateral security under the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant should determine the amount of distribution to the plaintiff as 78,00,000 won, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff submitted only a promissory note related to the right to collateral security, which is 60,000,000 won, which is the face value of a promissory note, as of the date of allocation of the sale price of the real estate of this case, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law that the defendant

Although the court below erred by misapprehending the part on the premise that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the compulsory execution procedure can be applied mutatis mutandis in this case, it is justifiable to conclude the above purport. Therefore, such error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal that criticizes the judgment of the court below is not acceptable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)