logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.08.27 2015두41371
국유재산변상금채무부존재확인
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 51(2) and 25(3) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 6072 of Dec. 31, 199) and Article 51(3) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 7325 of Dec. 31, 2004) (hereinafter “each provision of this case”) provide that the State Property Act may apply mutatis mutandis to indemnity against an occupant of State property without permission for the collection of indemnity by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act on the disposition on default.

On the other hand, Article 47(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that “The seizure of real estate, etc. under Article 45 shall also have its effect on the delinquent amount of national taxes for which the statutory due date under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has arrived before the ownership of the attached property is transferred.”

Even if a provision of a statute provides that the provision on the specific matters of another statute shall apply mutatis mutandis to the specific matters, and the relevant provision to which the provision shall apply mutatis mutandis shall apply mutatis mutandis in general, it is reasonable to interpret that the provision on the specific matters of another statute shall apply mutatis mutandis only to the extent that it does not go against the nature of the matter to be regulated.

The purport of Article 47(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act is to ensure the effectiveness of the collection of tax claims, such as national taxes that have high level of public interest, in respect of civil seizure based on general claims, if the registration of seizure is completed once, without a new registration of seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50625, Jul. 26, 2012).

However, the imposition of indemnity against the illegal occupant of state property is an administrative disposition.

arrow