A. Purport of the proviso of Article 42(1) and the proviso of Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(b) Purport of Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act;

A. In the event that a provisional registration procedure has been completed for the purpose of securing a claim for any real estate and the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration has been completed one year prior to the payment period of the national tax in arrears, the purport of the proviso of Article 42(1) and the proviso of Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is that the said provisional registration may not impose any physical tax on any secured creditor who completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration,

B. The purport of Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act is to make a registration of seizure once more, and if it is to make a registration of seizure, the necessity to make a new registration of seizure on the tax amount in arrears that occurred after the registration of seizure to the same person would naturally have the effect of seizure, and it does not necessarily have the effect of excluding the provisions of the proviso of Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the proviso of Article 42(1) of the same Act under the principle of priority application of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(a)Article 35(2) proviso, Article 42(1) proviso and (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu545 delivered on November 11, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1467 delivered on July 14, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a provisional registration procedure has been completed for the purpose of securing any obligation, and the principal registration procedure has been completed based on the provisional registration, if the above provisional registration was completed one year prior to the payment period of the national tax payable upon the provisional registration, it is the purport of the proviso of Article 42(1) and the proviso of Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that no obligation to pay for physical tax may be imposed on any secured creditor who completed the principal registration based on the above provisional registration (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu545, Nov. 11, 1986

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the payment period of the non-party's delinquent national taxes listed in Nos. 4,5,6 of the judgment of the court below among the non-party's delinquent national taxes in this case was June 30, 1985 and September 30, 1985, and the real estate in this case, which was one year prior to the above payment period, was completed for the purpose of securing claims, and the provisional registration procedure based on the provisional registration was completed for the purpose of securing claims, and then the provisional registration procedure was completed for September 24, 1984. In full view of the purport of the proviso of Articles 42 (1) and 35 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes as to the above delinquent national taxes, the court below revoked the disposition of notifying the payment of the above delinquent national taxes on the ground that the plaintiff, the mortgagee of the real estate in this case, the principal registration of which was completed

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as theory of litigation.

In this paper, since the seizure of real estate under Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act also takes effect on the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration or record of the seizure, the tax amount in arrears 4,5, and the tax amount in notice of tax payment written in 4,6 was established before the time of transfer even if the real estate was transferred to a third party, so the designation of the above physical tax liability by the defendant is justifiable. However, if the registration of seizure is made once, the purpose of Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act does not take effect on the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration of the seizure for the same person, and it does not have to take a new seizure registration as a matter of course, under the principle of priority application of the Framework Act on National Taxes under Article 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the provisions of Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act excluding the provisions of Articles 35 (2) and 42 (1) of the same Act are not valid.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)