Whether the mortgagee of the oligopolistic stockholder can seek revocation in relation to the designation of the oligopolistic stockholder as the secondary taxpayer and the disposition for arrears

If the tax authority designates an oligopolistic stockholder as a secondary taxpayer and takes a disposition to collect delinquent taxes on the same person's real estate after imposing a national tax, the mortgagee against the oligopolistic person has no standing to seek revocation of the above disposition.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu95 delivered on December 11, 1973

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu46 delivered on December 27, 1979

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Administrative litigation is a profit to be instituted only by a person who has a direct and specific interest in law due to an administrative disposition, but a person who has a de facto and indirect relationship with the above non-party shall be deemed to have no profit to be brought (referring to this case's 73Nu95 delivered on December 11, 1973 and 68Nu3 delivered on April 2, 1968). According to the facts established by the court below's decision, the defendant designated the non-party as a secondary taxpayer on the ground that the non-party is an oligopolistic shareholder of the above company as of the date when the liability to pay national tax was established with respect to the national tax in arrears by the non-party Youngnam Co., Ltd., the non-party as of the date when the liability to pay national tax was established, and the non-party was designated as a secondary taxpayer on the ground that the above non-party's disposition to seize the above non-party's real estate was a monetary claim secured by the mortgage against the above non-party, and therefore, the plaintiff's second taxpayer's appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, 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 Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)