(a) Scope of effects of participation in attachment under the National Tax Collection Act;

(b) Where there is a request for the delivery of the amount less than the actual amount in arrears by mistake after participation in the attachment, whether the disposition of refusal against the application for cancellation of participation made by the person who has acquired the object of auction and paid the tax in arrears is against the good faith principle.

A. Article 57 and Article 58 of the National Tax Collection Act stipulate that if the agency having already attached property releases the attachment after the participation in the attachment, the participation in the attachment shall retroactively take effect upon the completion of the registration of participation in the attachment. Article 47 of the same Act provides that the effect of the attachment shall also take effect on the delinquent amount arising after the registration of participation in the attachment. Thus, as in the case of attachment, the participation in the attachment shall take effect on the delinquent amount already incurred, as well as on the delinquent amount arising before the real estate is transferred to a third party after the registration of participation in the attachment. In the case of participation in the attachment, even if the tax office notifies the agency having already attached property or the third party having the right to the property, the participation in the attachment shall take effect only on the tax amount entered less than the actual delinquent amount.

B. Where the tax authority made a request for the delivery of the amount of national tax in which part of the amount was omitted due to mistake after the participation in the auction procedure was made, as long as the participation in the auction procedure was made, the request for delivery made thereafter is considered to have been made as a matter of course, so it is not only within the meaning of confirming the scope of the amount of tax in arrears, but also the person who acquired the real estate and paid the amount in arrears of the former owner for whom the request for delivery was made in the auction procedure is merely a third party who is not an interested party in the preceding auction procedure. Thus, the request for delivery by the tax authority cannot be deemed to have the meaning of the public opinion indicating that the taxpayer is limited to the amount of tax in arrears of the former owner. Furthermore, as long as the registration of participation in the auction procedure remains due to withdrawal of the request for delivery, even if the tax authority paid the amount of tax in arrears requested for the delivery in the auction procedure, its effect shall also extend to the amount of tax in arrears omitted from the request for delivery.

Articles 47, 57, and 58 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12080 decided Jun. 13, 1989 (Gong1989,905), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1462 decided Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong1992,1065)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu7909 delivered on December 22, 1993

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Articles 57 and 58 of the National Tax Collection Act provide that if the agency having already attached property releases the attachment after the participation in the attachment, the participation in the attachment shall retroactively take effect upon the completion of the registration of the participation in the attachment, and Article 47 of the same Act provides that the effect of the attachment shall also extend to the delinquent amount arising after the registration of the participation in the attachment (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1462, Feb. 14, 1992).

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the tax authority's participation in the attachment of an agency or a third party who has a right to the property with the agency or the delinquent taxpayer and the third party who has a right to the property has the effect of the actual delinquent tax due to mistake in notifying the participation in the attachment. Therefore, there is no reason to argue otherwise.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case during the auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 21, 191, and applied for the cancellation of participation in the auction against the defendant. However, as of July 7, 1992, the defendant applied for the cancellation of participation in the auction against the defendant. The defendant rejected the request for the cancellation of participation in the auction against the non-party 1 on the ground that the remaining amount of delinquent amount was not revoked unless the delinquent amount was paid by mistake. The real estate of this case was originally owned by the non-party 1, but the disposal of the real estate of this case was commenced on May 29, 191 by the non-party 1's request for voluntary auction on June 7, 1991, the defendant was not subject to the attachment of the land among the real estate of this case on the ground of the non-party 1's default of national taxes, and it was unlawful for the plaintiff to have obtained the above auction claim against the non-party 1 to the above auction court on the same day and the same month.

If the facts established by the court below are established, as long as participation in the attachment of the building among the real estate of this case was made, the request for delivery is considered to have been made as a matter of course. Thus, the claim for delivery thereafter is limited to confirming the scope of delinquent amount to participate in the distribution, and the plaintiff is only a third party, not an interested party in the preceding auction procedure. Thus, the defendant's request for delivery cannot be deemed to have the meaning of the public opinion statement that limits the non-party's delinquent amount

Furthermore, as long as the registration of participation in the above building remains due to the withdrawal of the request for auction, even if the plaintiff paid the delinquent tax amount requested for delivery in the above auction procedure, the effect of participation in auction shall also extend to the delinquent tax amount omitted in the request for delivery. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant made any disposition contrary to the previous opinion on the request for cancellation of the plaintiff's participation in auction.

Therefore, the conclusion of the court below that the disposition rejecting the cancellation of the attachment of this case was not illegal is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the principle of good faith under tax law such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to argue.

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.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)