(a) A method of issuing a payment notice to the mortgagee;

(b) Time to deem that any real estate, the principal registration of which has been made on the basis of provisional registration for the purpose of collateral security, is made as property transferred

A. As long as the tax authority issued a notice of designation of physical tax liability and a notice of payment to a mortgagee pursuant to Articles 13 and 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, and issued such notice to the mortgagee, it cannot be deemed that there is procedural defect even if the tax authority did not clarify the indication of the property transferred for security and the purport of collecting the property.

B. In the event that a provisional registration procedure has been completed for the purpose of securing the obligation to any real estate, and the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration has been completed, if such provisional registration was completed one year prior to the payment period of the delinquent national tax, the purport of the proviso of Article 42(1) and the proviso of Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, comprehensively taking into account the purport of the proviso of Article 42(1) and

(a) Articles 12 and 13 of the National Tax Collection Act;

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu879 delivered on June 10, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the plaintiff and the non-party 1 did not perform the above provisional registration on June 12, 1981, the court below found that the plaintiff and the non-party 2 did not perform the above provisional registration on the part of the non-party 1's interest rate of 250,000,000 won to the non-party 2, and that the non-party 2 did not perform the above provisional registration on June 17, 1981 as well as on the non-party 1's attached list of the court below's decision that the non-party 2 did not perform the above provisional registration on the part of the non-party 1's notice of payment of the national tax, and the non-party 2 did not perform the above provisional registration on the part of the non-party 1's obligation to pay the above provisional registration on the non-party 2's claim that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not pay the above provisional registration on the part of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the payment period was September 30, 1982, when the global income tax and the defense tax ( frequently divided on September 17, 1982) listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table (1) of the judgment of the court below among non-party 2's delinquent national tax in this case, and the provisional registration procedure based on the provisional registration was completed on February 4, 1982, and the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration was completed on February 4, 1982, with respect to the real estate 1/2 shares from the above payment period, the court below revoked the disposition on the payment notice on the above delinquent national tax by taking into account the purport of the proviso of Article 42 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the proviso of Article 35 (2) of the same Act with respect to the national tax in this case, which was completed one year prior to the provisional registration made on September 1, 1982.

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 the theory of litigation, etc.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)