Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Cheongju-si Office (Attorney Seo Young-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 24, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 41,187,91 won with 5% interest per annum from February 8, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. By December 1, 1997, the non-party corporation (the non-party corporation) defaulted with KRW 208,642,310, such as industrial accident insurance premiums and other collection charges, and on December 1, 1997, the plaintiff attached the non-party corporation's land other than the non-party corporation's land (the real estate of this case omitted its lot number) with a 272m2 square meters (the real estate of this case), in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected, and the attachment registration was completed on December 2, 1997.

B. After that, on July 6, 200, the registration of provisional attachment by the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company, the registration of provisional attachment by the defendant on December 11, 2000, the registration of seizure by the Cheongju-si on February 9, 2001, the registration of attachment by the Cheongdong-gu Office on February 28, 2001, and the registration of provisional attachment by the trustee in bankruptcy on June 12, 2002, was completed in sequence.

C. On June 2, 2006, the defendant requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to sell the real estate of this case, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation distributed the remaining KRW 41,187,911, excluding KRW 1,479,250, out of KRW 42,667,161, to be distributed on January 30, 207.

D. The amount of the claim claimed by the Plaintiff during the aforementioned distribution procedure was KRW 172,755,020 of the industrial accident insurance premium and other collected amount (additional dues) KRW 202,528,260.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4-1, 2, and 3

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 31(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that the amount of money collectible by a local government shall be collected in preference to other public charges and other claims. Article 31(2)1 of the same Act provides that in the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges, where the amount of money collected as a local tax is collected from the amount of the disposition on default, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to the amount of the additional dues or disposition on default of national taxes or public charges. The above provision provides that the priority order shall be applied to the amount of the national taxes, the tax claim that is prohibited from local taxes, the additional dues or disposition on default of public charges, and the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges shall be given by applying the priority priority order on seizure. The plaintiff, who is the seizure agency, shall have priority over the defendant's local taxes in the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges. In addition, since the defendant's seizure and public sale therefrom violate the provisions of Articles 57 through 59 of the National Tax Collection Act which are applied mutatis mutandis by Article 82 of the Local Tax Act, it is unlawful and thus, the defendant has received the amount

3. Determination

A. Article 34(1) of the Local Tax Act provides, “In case where the property of a taxpayer or a person liable for extraordinary collection is seized by the disposition on default of money collectible by a local government, if another local government or a person liable for extraordinary collection requests the delivery of money collectible by a local government, the money collectible by a local government related to a seizure shall be collected in preference to the money collectible by another local government or national taxes related to a request for delivery.” Article 34(2) of the same Act provides, “in case where the property of a taxpayer or a person liable for extraordinary collection is seized by the disposition on default of national taxes, the money collectible by a local government related to a request for the delivery of money collectible by a local government shall be collected after the money collectible by a local government related to a seizure or national taxes, shall be collected after the money collectible

B. However, Article 76 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003; hereinafter the same) provides that "the priority order of collection of the insurance premiums and other dues under this Act shall be the following national and local taxes." Article 74 (1) of the same Act provides that if the insurance premiums and other dues under this Act are not paid, it may be collected in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected with the approval of the Minister of Labor. In light of the language and text of the provision or the form of the provision, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act provides that the same shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the industrial accident compensation insurance premiums and local taxes under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da4384 decided May 27, 2005).

C. Meanwhile, Article 31(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that “The local government’s impositions shall be collected in preference to other public charges and other claims,” and Article 31(2)1 of the Local Tax Act provides that “in the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges, where the local tax is collected from the amount of the disposition on default, the exemption from the application of the provision of paragraph (1) is granted.” However, in the disposition on default of public charges, where the local tax is collected from the amount of the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges, the additional dues or disposition on default of local taxes

D. Article 57(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides, “If the property to be attached is already attached by another agency, the director of the tax office may participate in the attachment by serving a notice of participation in attachment on the agency which already attached the property (hereinafter referred to as “agency”) in lieu of the request for delivery.” However, if the above provision of the National Tax Collection Act applies to the prohibition of double attachment between national taxes, national taxes, local taxes, and local taxes, the same provision of Articles 57 through 59 of the National Tax Collection Act concerning the provisional attachment and the notice of disposition of sale to the agency having already attached property, it is not appropriate for the head of the tax office to impose double attachment of the same property in cases where the property is already attached by the disposition on default, compulsory execution, or auction procedure, and it is not appropriate for the agency to obtain preferential right according to the order of the local tax collection procedure, and if the result of double attachment can be obtained by one of the agencies having already launched the local tax collection procedure, it can be allowed to obtain double attachment under the above provision of the Local Tax Act.

E. However, if the above provision is interpreted as a compulsory provision prohibiting double seizure even between public charges such as industrial accident insurance premiums and local taxes or national taxes, under the current system where there is no legal device that can prevent delay of execution for a long period of time if the agency related to public charges delays the execution of sale, etc., the public sale procedure cannot be deemed unlawful by taking into account the following factors: (a) the first priority of taxation is threatened by granting priority to the agency related to public charges as a result of the preferential collection of the proceeds of the sale under Article 31(2)1 of the Local Tax Act; and (b) the same result is applied to both public charges and local taxes or national taxes; and (c) the above provision cannot be deemed as a compulsory provision prohibiting double seizure even in such cases.

F. In light of the above, Article 31(2)1 of the Local Tax Act provides that "disposition on default of national taxes or public charges is to be imposed upon a local government," and Article 34(2)1 of the same Act provides that "disposition on default of national taxes or public charges is to be used as a separate concept for seizure and disposition on default, and it is to be limited to "collection on local taxes or public charges" as well as "collection on local taxes, local taxes, etc. are collected" in the above Article 31(2)1 of the same Act provides that the collection office's purpose is to obtain satisfaction of tax claims by appropriating delinquent national taxes, etc. with the proceeds from realizing the property of taxpayers after seizing and realizing the property of the taxpayer's properties. Even if the distribution order by an organization that directly executes the sale in accordance with due process is subordinate, it is to be considered that the above provision on disposition on default of national taxes and public charges is not applied to the cases where the above provision on seizure is not applied to an industrial accident or the above provision on seizure order.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Na-gion