부동산에 관한 국세징수법상 배분이의 제도에 관한 검토 -민사집행법상 배당이의를 참고하여-

This paper examines the objection procedure to distribution under the National Tax Collection Act by comparing it with the objection procedure to distribution under the Civil Execution Act. While research specific to the National Tax Collection Act is certainly necessary, the Civil Execution Act still holds a foundational position and has accumulated a lot of cases regarding compulsory execution. First, the paper reviews a full bench decision on whether a person who did not raise an objection to distribution under the Civil Execution Act can still file a claim for unjust enrichment. Based on this decision, it is argued that exercising the right to claim unjust enrichment is indeed possible. Accordingly, it is considered that even under the National Tax Collection Act, a person who did not raise an objection to distribution should also be able to claim unjust enrichment. However, case law under the National Tax Collection Act has recognized the right to claim unjust enrichment even for those who failed to file a distribution request, which they were required to do. This paper examines the need for a change in judicial attitude in light of changes to the system under the National Tax Collection Act. Furthermore, since the distribution measure is recognized as an administrative measure, it carries binding administrative effect (public confidence), and thus the right to claim unjust enrichment should only be acknowledged in cases where the measure is null and void. The paper then explores how a lawsuit objecting to distribution is based on the nature of the measure procedure as an administrative measure, making it subject to an administrative appeal. It also examines the requirement to undergo a mandatory pre-litigation procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, since the measure procedure under the National Tax Collection Act does not involve disputing the legitimacy of a tax assessment and is instead based on civil law principles of distribution, the necessity of a mandatory pre-litigation procedure is questioned. Going forward, it is suggested that this procedure should be transformed into an optional one, allowing delinquent taxpayers and others to proceed directly to litigation without undergoing the pre-litigation process. Although discussions on whether to independently regulate lawsuits objecting to distribution have not yet matured, considering the unique nature of the measure procedure, it may be appropriate to treat it as a special provision within administrative litigation.