(a) Whether attachment by the tax authority of the land allotted by the recompense of development outlay takes effect upon registering it in the sale ledger of the land allotted by the authorities (affirmative);

(b) Whether a person registered as an owner on the ledger of sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay by taking over the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay already seized has standing to sue to seek the seizure disposition or cancellation of the public sale disposition based thereon

A. If the tax authority seizes the land allotted by the authorities prior to the public notice of a replotting disposition, and commission the executor of a land readjustment project to register the seizure in the sale ledger of the land allotted by the authorities for recompense of development outlay to register the seizure, it shall be deemed that the seizure becomes effective

B. If the tax authority seizes land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to collect taxes and registers the fact of seizure in the ledger of sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay after the seizure, even if they were registered as owners on the ledger of sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, they have a factual and indirect interest in the above seizure disposition, and thus, they do not have standing to seek revocation of the above seizure disposition

(b)Article 45 and Article 47 of National Tax Collection Act, Section 54 of the Land Readjustment Project Act, Section 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

Kim Jong-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9697 delivered on June 14, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As determined by the court below, if the defendant seizes the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay before the public notice of replotting and commission the land readjustment project executor to register the seizure in the sale ledger of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay to register the seizure, the seizure shall be deemed to be effective. In the same purport, the court below's decision that the seizure of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense by the defendant takes effect is just and there

2. As determined by the court below, if the new annexed land sub-division 2, which is the executor of the land readjustment project, transferred land development recompense at the original time to Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. on October 13, 1983, and the above Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. transferred land to the above Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. on the same day, and the above Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. transferred the land to the above Cho Byung Byung-cup Co., Ltd. on January 7, 1985 each transferred the above land to the plaintiffs after February 26, 1985, and registered the above land as the owner in the sale ledger of the land secured for development recompense, but the defendant seized the above land secured for development recompense on December 1, 1983 for the collection of corporate tax, etc. of the above land secured for development recompense, and registered the seizure in the above sale ledger of the land secured for development outlay Co., Ltd., the above land secured by the above plaintiffs, as a transferee after the seizure of the land secured for development recompense, and thus there is no right

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. If the court below is justified to determine that there is no interest in filing a lawsuit against the plaintiffs, it is not necessary to consider whether there was a defect in the procedure of the public sale in this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the court below did not judge whether the decision was illegal to notify the plaintiffs in the procedure of the public sale in this case, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss

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 Yoon In-tae (Presiding Justice)