(a) The seizure procedure and effective time of any claim by the delinquent taxpayer for the transfer of ownership on national or public property owned by the State or public organizations;

B. In case of seizure under subsection (a), if not given notice and notification to the debtor and the delinquent taxpayer, the effect of seizure

A. Article 52(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when a delinquent taxpayer entered into a sales contract with the State or a public organization on state or public property but fails to acquire its ownership, the procedure for seizing the right to claim ownership transfer on state or public property owned by the State or a public organization, and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when a delinquent taxpayer intends to seize his rights under the same Act, he shall request the relevant government agency to register with attachment report attached thereto. The effect of attachment takes place when a written request for attachment registration to the government agency concerned pursuant to Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is

B. Since Article 41(1) does not apply mutatis mutandis to the notification to the debtor under Article 52 of the National Tax Collection Act, it is not necessary to separately notify the debtor of such purport at the time of seizure under Article 52(2) of the same Act, and Article 52(2) of the same Act which provides that the notice to the delinquent shall be given to the delinquent taxpayer is applied mutatis mutandis under Article 41(3) of the same Act, the delinquent taxpayer shall be notified of such purport, but the seizure shall not be null

(a) Article 52 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 41(3) of the National Tax Collection Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8818 delivered on January 25, 1994

Park Planning Co., Ltd.

Head of Si Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu16627 delivered on January 25, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the head of the competent tax office attached the right of claim for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the market land purchased by the plaintiff on May 25, 1979 from the non-party Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on the ground of the plaintiff's default of national taxes, such as corporate tax, etc., and the disposition of the court below is not invalidated on the ground that the above market land, the replotting of which has been determined, was already indicated as the subdivision number of the

2. Article 52(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when a delinquent taxpayer entered into a sales contract on state-owned or public property with a state-owned or public organization but has not yet acquired its ownership, procedures for the seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer on state-owned or public property held by the delinquent taxpayer against the state-owned or public organization shall be attached to the attachment report, and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when the delinquent taxpayer intends to seize the right under the above Act, the attachment shall be entrusted to the relevant government agency along with the attachment report. The attachment shall take effect when the letter of entrustment of the attachment registration to the relevant government agency pursuant to Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is served on the relevant government agency. According to the records, the attachment of this case is valid in accordance with legitimate procedures (Evidence 1).

On the other hand, since Article 41 (1) of the same Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the notification to the debtor under Article 52 of the same Act, it is not necessary to separately notify the debtor of such fact in case of seizure, and Article 52 (2) of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provision of Article 41 (3) of the same Act which provides that the notice to the delinquent taxpayer shall be given to the delinquent taxpayer. However, the attachment shall not be null and void because the delinquent taxpayer did not give such notice.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is correct to determine that the seizure of this case is not null and void, and it does not violate the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, the incomplete hearing, and the lack of reasoning. The arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)