In cases where attachment report is not prepared in accordance with a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, whether the attachment of a claim itself is null and void (negative), and in cases where a claim subject to attachment is not specified in the notice of attachment of a claim against a third debtor, or where a clause prohibiting the performance of an obligation against a delinquent taxpayer is not stated, the validity of attachment of a claim (negative)

In the attachment of a claim under the National Tax Collection Act, the preparation of the attachment report is merely recording and proving the fact that the relevant claim was seized within the tax authority, and it cannot be deemed an effective requirement for the attachment of a claim. Thus, the attachment report cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the attachment report was not prepared. However, the attachment of a claim is essential to ensure a tax claim by prohibiting a debtor (hereinafter “third debtor”) from performing his/her obligation to a delinquent taxpayer. Thus, inasmuch as the attachment of a claim is based on the text of the notification of attachment against a third debtor, the attachment of a claim is invalid unless the seized claim is not specified or the text prohibiting a delinquent from performing his/her obligation is not stated (see Article 19 of the Act on the Collection, etc. of Local Non-Tax Revenue). In addition, this legal principle also applies to the attachment procedure, such as a penalty surcharge, enforcement fine, and charge

Articles 29 and 41 of the National Tax Collection Act; Articles 9, 13, and 19 of the former Act on the Collection, etc. of Local Non-Tax Revenue (Amended by Act No. 14476, Dec. 27, 2016)

Supreme Court Decision 72Ma59 Decided November 26, 1973 (No. 21-3, 173) Supreme Court Decision 84Do855 Decided August 21, 1984 (Gong1984, 1586), Supreme Court Decision 95Da41611 Decided April 22, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 1532)

Plaintiff

Seongbuk-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City (Law Firm private interest rate, Attorneys Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Na107347 Decided February 2, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The preparation of attachment report in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act is merely recording and proving the fact that the tax authority has seized the relevant credit, and it cannot be deemed an effective requirement for the attachment (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do855, Aug. 21, 1984). Thus, the attachment report cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the attachment report was not prepared, but the attachment of the claim is based on the intrinsic purport of securing a tax claim by prohibiting the debtor from performing his/her obligation to the debtor (hereinafter “third debtor”). Thus, in light of the language and text of the attachment notice against the third debtor, the attachment of the claim is null and void unless the attachment claim is not specified or the clause prohibiting the delinquent from performing his/her obligation to the third debtor is not stated (see Supreme Court Order 72Ma59, Nov. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 95Da1611, Apr. 22, 197; Supreme Court Decision 9Da1619, etc., applicable to the local government’s local non-tax revenue revenue collection procedure (see, etc.).

2. According to the records, the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City basin head issued a disposition imposing enforcement fines and imposing expenses for vicarious administrative execution totaling KRW 28,709,980 on eight occasions between April 23, 2012 and October 28, 2014. On the other hand, on November 16, 2012, the Defendant issued a separate notice of the Plaintiff’s non-tax revenue receipts, which is the non-tax revenue receipts of KRW 28,709,980, and the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City basin head issued a disposition imposing enforcement fines and imposing expenses for vicarious administrative execution. On the other hand, on November 16, 2012, the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City basin head notified the Plaintiff of the plan to extend the parking lots at the entrance of the Seosung-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City basin, the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City basin, which is the non-tax revenue receipts of KRW 385,5,00,000, which are the non-tax revenue receipts of the Plaintiff.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, although the attachment report of this case was not prepared at the time of the attachment, the attachment report of this case itself cannot be deemed null and void, it is reasonable to deem that the attachment of this case is null and void, unless there is an indication in the notice of claim attachment against the defendant (the chief of traffic department) that the defendant (the third debtor) prohibits the performance of obligation to the plaintiff who is the delinquent taxpayer, and the attachment of this case should be judged objectively and uniformly, and the effect of the attachment of the claim as part of the disposition on default should be determined objectively and uniformly. As such, it cannot be viewed differently even if both the enforcement fine and the obligor of the claim for expenses for vicarious administrative execution and the obligor of the obligation to pay the expropriation compensation are the same as the defendant. The lower court determined that the attachment of this case was null and void on the ground that the attachment report of this case was not prepared at the time of the attachment, but it is justifiable in its conclusion on the premise that the attachment is null and void, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. 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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)