The purport of the provision of Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act and the priority of real rights established on the attached property after seizure and taxes newly created;

[1] Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Lee Nam-Nam (Law Firm Samdon, Attorneys Kim White-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Asset Management Corporation

Busan High Court Decision 2003Nu490 delivered on May 16, 2003

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the effect of the seizure of real estate, etc. conducted by the head of a tax office shall also extend to the amount of delinquent taxes for the national taxes of which statutory due date has come before the transfer of ownership of the relevant attached property under the provisions of Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The purport of the above provision is that if the seizure is registered once again, the seizure does not take effect as a matter of course with regard to the amount of delinquent taxes incurred after the registration of the seizure for the same person, and it does not recognize any special priority of the national tax claims accrued thereafter, and the above provision does not have the effect of excluding the provisions of Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu827, Jan. 19, 198), and if the mortgage, pledge or lease is established after the seizure, the priority between the real rights and the taxes newly accrued after the seizure shall be determined after the date of registration of the creation and the statutory due date of the new tax payment.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the secured debt of this case is superior to the national tax of this case in the distribution order of the proceeds of the public auction, even though the secured debt of this case was set after the attachment of this case and the national tax related to the attachment was fully paid after the attachment but the attachment is still valid due to the delinquent national tax of this case that occurred after the attachment, since the registration date of the establishment of the secured mortgage is prior to the statutory date of the delinquent national tax, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the attachment and the distribution order of the proceeds of the public auction as otherwise

The Supreme Court decision cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is not appropriate to be invoked in this case, since it differs from the case.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)