[1] In a case where the imposition of excess ownership charges and the attachment registration based thereon are made prior to the decision of unconstitutionality as to the whole Act on the Ownership of the Housing Site, and each disposition becomes final and conclusive, whether a new attachment disposition and its subsequent attachment can be made after the decision of unconstitutionality (negative)

[2] The validity of Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the repealed Act after the decision of unconstitutionality on the whole of the former Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site is made

[1] The case holding that Article 30 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 5571 of Sep. 19, 1998) provides that "if a person liable to pay charges fails to fully pay the charges, additional dues, etc. by the designated deadline after receiving a demand notice, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may collect them in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the National Tax Collection Act." However, the provisions of Article 30 of the above Act, as the decision of unconstitutionality on April 29, 199, became null and void as of April 29, 199, on the ground that there are no other legal grounds that it can be collected by compulsory collection of delinquent local taxes, and even if the imposition disposition, attachment disposition, and attachment registration based thereon are made before the decision of unconstitutionality, a new new attachment disposition and attachment based thereon cannot be made after the decision of unconstitutionality becomes final and conclusive (in case where other assets are cancelled after the original decision of unconstitutionality, the initial attachment disposition and attachment disposition are a new one without any grounds for invalidation.

[2] Article 3 (3) of the Addenda to the Abolition of the Housing Site Act (Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198), which provides that "the base date for the imposition of charges at the time of the enforcement of this Act shall be governed by the previous provisions with respect to the imposition, collection, etc. of charges imposed or to be imposed under the previous provisions as charges before December 31, 1997," but this supplementary provision is based on the premise that the above Act is constitutional, and thereafter, this supplementary provision cannot be applied any more unless the decision of unconstitutionality for all of the above Act is made.

[1] Article 30 of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Act No. 5571 of Sep. 19, 1998); Article 24 and Article 53 (2) 4 of the National Tax Collection Act / [2] Paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the repealed Act (Act No. 5571 of Sep. 19, 1998)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da2294 decided Apr. 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1122), Constitutional Court Decision 94HunBa37 delivered on Apr. 29, 199, and 66 cases (HunGong34, 337)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu10627 delivered on February 2, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (including supplementary statements of grounds of appeal).

1. Article 30 of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Act No. 5571 of Sep. 19, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Alternative Commercial Act") provides that "if a person liable for payment of charges fails to fully pay the charges, additional dues, etc. by the designated deadline after receiving a demand notice, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may impose them in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the National Tax Collection Act." However, Article 30 of the former Act on April 29, 199 as the decision of unconstitutionality on the whole of the Housing Act was null and void from the date of the decision of unconstitutionality, and there are no other legal grounds for compelling the delinquent amount to be collected. Accordingly, even if the imposition disposition of excess amount of charges, seizure disposition, and seizure registration based thereon are made prior to the decision of unconstitutionality, a new attachment disposition and seizure based thereon cannot be made after the decision of unconstitutionality.

In addition, Article 3 (3) of the Addenda to the Abolition of the Housing Site Act (Act No. 5571 of September 19, 1998) provides that "the previous provision shall apply to the imposition, collection, etc. of charges imposed or to be imposed in accordance with the previous provisions, as charges before December 31, 1997, which were imposed or to be imposed in accordance with the previous provisions, as charges prior to the enforcement of this Act," but this supplementary provision provides that "The foregoing supplementary provision is premised on the constitutionality of the Housing Site Act, and the subsequent decision of unconstitutionality as to the whole of the Housing Site Commercial Act is made (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da2294 delivered on April 12, 2002)."

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged that on February 17, 1995, the defendant did not pay 125,527,90 won of the charge for excess ownership, and completed the seizure registration on February 20 of the same year. However, on December 29, 199, the plaintiff applied for the alteration of the seizure from the land owned by the plaintiff to the defendant before the alteration of the seizure. The defendant accepted the seizure of the land before the alteration of the seizure (hereinafter referred to as "the seizure disposition of this case") and completed the seizure registration of this case on January 3, 200, the court below determined that the new disposition of seizure of the land in excess of the charges for collecting the charges for excess ownership of the previous provisions concerning the collection of the charges for arrears after the abolishment of the Commercial Act becomes final and conclusive separately from the date of the original disposition of seizure of the land in excess of the original disposition of the attached property before the alteration of the seizure of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the new disposition of seizure").

In light of the records, the contents of the relevant statutes and the legal principles as seen earlier, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the seizure under Article 53 (2) 4 of the National Tax Collection Act or the collection under Article 53 (3) of the Addenda to the repeal of the Commercial Act.

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)