[1] In a case where a person can seek the return of unjust enrichment or the cancellation of ownership transfer registration made by an administrative disposition directly due to a civil lawsuit, whether there is a benefit of lawsuit seeking the revocation of disposition in the sense of seeking the confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition or the declaration of invalidation of an administrative disposition (negative)

[2] The case holding that the public auction disposition cannot be revoked after the purchaser paid the sale price in accordance with the sale decision, where the notice of public auction was delivered lawfully in the subsequent public auction procedure even though there was no notice of demand at the time of the attachment disposition

[1] In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relation subject to the lawsuit, and thereby, it is necessary and appropriate to confirm the existence of the legal relation by a judgment as there is apprehension and risk in the plaintiff's rights or legal status. Thus, even if a tax disposition and a seizure and a public sale disposition are null and void, in a case where a return of the tax amount appropriated by a disposition for arrears in a civil procedure is sought as unjust enrichment, or where a third party can seek cancellation of a transfer of ownership registration made in the future by a disposition for arrears, the above tax disposition and seizure and public sale disposition cannot be considered as a direct, effective and appropriate method in dispute resolution, and thus there is no benefit in the lawsuit, and such legal principle is the same as in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition in the sense of seeking revocation of disposition in the same sense

[2] The case holding that even if there is a procedural defect such as a defect in demand at the stage of the attachment disposition, if the notice of public auction was lawfully delivered to the purchaser in the subsequent stage of the auction procedure, it is not possible for the purchaser to cancel the auction disposition in question, unless there are any special circumstances, after the purchaser pays the purchase price in accordance with the sale decision, if the notice of public auction was lawfully delivered to the delinquent taxpayer in the subsequent stage of the auction procedure, it is not possible for the purchaser to cancel the auction disposition, in light of the following: (a) there is a need to protect the purchaser's rights and interests who trusted that the purchaser acquired the ownership of the purchased real estate, and (b) a demand as a premise for the disposition on default is to provide the delinquent taxpayer with an opportunity to avoid the disposition on default; and (c) even if the notice of public auction was not served legally on the delinquent taxpayer in the auction

[1] Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 23, 68, and 77 of the National Tax Collection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15271 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2402) Supreme Court Decision 98Du4375 delivered on September 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2593)

Dongjin Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Asset Management Corporation

Head of Three Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu11355 delivered on November 26, 2004

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of an administrative disposition, the benefit of confirmation is in dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is deemed necessary and appropriate to confirm the existence of the legal relation by a judgment because the plaintiff's right or legal status is unstable and dangerous. Thus, even if a tax disposition and a seizure disposition are null and void, in a case where a person can seek a return of the tax amount directly appropriated for a disposition on default due to a civil lawsuit, or a third party can seek a cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made by a public sale disposition, the above tax disposition and seizure and public sale disposition cannot be deemed as a direct, effective and appropriate method in dispute resolution (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du4375 delivered on September 22, 1998). The same legal principle applies to a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition in the sense of seeking a declaration of invalidation of an administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15271 delivered on June 9, 195).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and the above legal principles, as the plaintiff sought revocation of the public auction disposition of this case in the sense of seeking the declaration of invalidation since the disposition of this case was based on invalid taxation, the court below is just in holding that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it was not a direct, effective and appropriate method for dispute resolution, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As seen earlier, inasmuch as the lower court’s determination that this part of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff seeking the revocation of the instant public sale disposition is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, as long as it is justifiable in that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant public sale disposition is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, even if there is a serious and obvious defect corresponding to the grounds for invalidation of the instant public sale disposition, the outcome of the judgment that there is no interest in the lawsuit against the Defendant requesting the confirmation of invalidity

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

After the purchaser paid the purchase price in full according to the sale decision, there is a need to protect the rights and interests of the purchaser trusted that he acquired the ownership of the purchased real estate, and a demand as a prerequisite for the disposition on default is to provide the delinquent taxpayer with an opportunity to avoid the disposition on default. Even if the notice of demand for the disposition on default was incomplete, if the notice of demand for the public sale was delivered lawfully to the delinquent taxpayer in the subsequent public sale procedure, it is difficult to view that the delinquent taxpayer's procedural rights or interests were infringed. In light of the above, even if there were procedural defects such as the defect in demand at the stage of the disposition on attachment, if the notice of demand was lawfully delivered during the subsequent public sale procedure, it is reasonable to deem that the purchaser cannot cancel the disposition on the public sale, unless there are any other special circumstances.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below erred in omitting judgment in rejecting all of the lawsuit of this case without making any judgment as to the plaintiff's argument that the public auction disposition of this case is unlawful as the lack of delivery of demand notice, but in light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the plaintiff asserted in the public auction procedure of this case, if the notice of public auction in this case was lawfully served on the plaintiff and the plaintiff raised an objection against it, the public auction disposition of this case cannot be revoked on the ground that the defects in delivery of demand notice are defects after all payment of purchase price in the public auction disposition of this case, and the plaintiff's claim of this part of this case should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be revoked on the ground that the plaintiff's defect in delivery of demand notice after the payment of purchase price in this case was made, and even if the court below dismissed all of the lawsuit of this case without dismissing this part of demand notice and dismissed it in this case, the court below's error in the above judgment below cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)