Whether the goods tax and petroleum tax collected by the head of the relevant customs office may be collected in preference to other taxes and claims by applying mutatis mutandis Article 20(1) of the Customs Act.

Article 20 (1) of the Customs Act provides that "the collection of customs duties shall take precedence over other taxes, public charges, and claims with respect to the goods liable for payment of customs duties." The exclusion of Article 35 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that even if national taxes are national taxes, claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage established one year prior to the payment date shall not take precedence over those claims, is derived from the unique characteristics of the customs duties, so the provision on the imposition and collection of customs duties shall apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition of internal taxes collected by the head of the relevant customs office, even though Article 17 (8) of the Customs Act provides that the provision on the imposition and collection of customs duties shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Articles 20(1) and 17(8) of the Customs Act; Article 35 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff’s Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na915 delivered on July 7, 1978

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

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

Article 20(1) of the Customs Act provides that "the collection of customs duties shall take precedence over other taxes, public charges, and claims with respect to the goods liable for payment of customs duties." As to customs duties, it is derived from the unique nature of customs duties that there is no exception provision such as Article 35(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes to the effect that a claim secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage established one year prior to the due date for payment of customs duties does not take precedence over the claims, even if national taxes are national taxes. Therefore, with respect to the goods tax and petroleum tax, the provisions on the imposition and collection of the customs duties shall apply mutatis mutandis to the internal tax collected by the head of the customs office pursuant to Article 17(8) of the Customs Act and Article 17(8) of the Customs Act, as long as it is not a customs duty, it shall be interpreted that Article 20(1) of the Customs Act with respect to the preferential taxation of customs duties shall not be excluded.

Therefore, in the same purport, the court below's determination that the goods and petroleum taxes in question cannot be preferred to the secured claims of the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea and the plaintiff, which have already been mortgaged one year prior to the payment period, cannot be viewed as a misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 17 (8) of the Customs Act.

In addition, in the case of voluntary auction such as this case, the provisions on the distribution procedure of the Civil Procedure Act in which the right to object to distribution is recognized by its nature are not applied mutatis mutandis, so the judgment below is also justifiable in the same reason, and it is not possible to employ arguments that attack the judgment of the court below on different opinions.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)