2. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the distribution of the proceeds of the public sale by Korea OOO as the Plaintiff’s representative to the Republic of Korea is revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the administrative agencies shall participate, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant, while the costs of lawsuit between the director of the tax office of distributing the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be

The director of the tax office shall bear the part by the plaintiff's distribution office including the part caused by participation.

Cheong-gu Office

The main text of paragraph (2) is as follows.

Preliminaryly, on October 12, 2012, the defendant's refusal to distribute the proceeds of the public sale of the OOO members against the director of the tax office of the distribution of the plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. On June 17, 2008, the participating administrative agency (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") attached 7,767,470 shares of BBH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") for the reason that KimA was delinquent in payment of the additional collection charge to the OOO, and requested the Defendant to vicariously sell the shares of this case on January 15, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") by proxy under Article 29 and Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act, respectively, although Article 477(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 17-2(1) and the proviso of Article 17-2(2) of the Rules on the Execution of the Prosecution's Affairs concerning Property Punishment, etc. are based on the exercise of authority based on the above provisions of the National Tax Collection Act).

B. Accordingly, on December 30, 2009, the Defendant issued a public auction notice on the instant shares, and made a decision on August 6, 2012 to sell them toCC and fishery, and on September 13, 2012 after the purchaser paid the remainder.

C. On September 26, 2012, the director of the tax office determined that the sum of the capital gains tax and the securities transaction tax (hereinafter “the national tax of this case”) on the capital gains from the sale of the instant shares, i.e., the sales of the instant shares by KimA, and the capital gains from the sale of the said shares, i.e., the sales of the instant shares, and determined and notified the same to KimA on September 21, 2012.

D. On September 27, 2012, the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff Company demanded the issuance of the pertinent national tax and the total amount of the capital gains tax and securities transaction tax OOO in arrears before KimA’s distribution procedure (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”). The details of the request for the issuance are as follows (the national tax of this case constitutes 3-6).

(unit: source)

The defendant's distributed amount

No.

Year

Items of Taxation

Legal date;

Amount of tax

Additional Dues

Total

1

209

Securities Transaction Tax

April 13, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

2

209

Transfer Income Tax

December 10, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

3

2012

Transfer Income Tax

September 21, 2012

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

4

2012

Transfer Income Tax

September 21, 2012

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

5

2012

Securities Transaction Tax

September 21, 2012

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

6

2012

Securities Transaction Tax

September 21, 2012

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

guidance.

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

E. On October 5, 2012, the Defendant prepared a distribution statement on the sales price of the instant shares, and distributed the sales price and the deposited interest and the OOO (hereinafter “the instant sales price, etc.”) as indicated in the following table. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant did not distribute the instant sales price, etc. with respect to the instant national taxes (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(unit: source)

Priority

Amount of claims

Distribution Amount

1

Expenses for disposition on default

OOO

OOO

2

Distribution tax secretary;

OOO

OOO

2

Seocho-gu Office

OOO

OOO

2

Seoul Metropolitan Government

OOO

OOO

2

Ansan-gu Office of the United Nations

OOO

OOO

2

Pool viewing

OOO

OOO

3

Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (Executive Office 2 and its jurisdiction)

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

A person who is entitled to raise an objection to the distribution of the purchase price of the instant shares is the Republic of Korea, which is the subject of rights with the legal capacity, and the director of the tax office, which is an administrative agency, shall not raise an objection. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim by the director of the tax office of the tax office

B. Determination

The director of the tax office of the Plaintiff’s distribution is merely an administrative agency and thus cannot be the subject of rights. In other words, the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff’s distribution asserts that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order to receive relief therefrom, but the above right to tax collection belongs to the Republic of Korea. In particular, in this case, the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea claims the same contents as the Plaintiff

According to Supreme Court Decision 201Nu1214 Decided July 25, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1214 Decided July 25, 2013, the standing to sue, etc. may be affirmed in a case where a state agency, in principle, fails to have the ability to sue and standing to sue, falls under certain exceptional cases recognized as valid and appropriate means. However, insofar as the Republic of Korea, which is the subject of the right to tax collection, has filed a lawsuit entirely identical to the Plaintiff, the subject of the right to tax collection, as seen earlier, does not constitute such exceptional cases. Therefore, the part of the claim of the Plaintiff Distribution

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff’s assertion in Korea

With respect to the public auction procedure conducted before January 1, 2012, the first public auction notice is subject to Articles 81 and 83 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011; hereinafter the same) with respect to the request for distribution of the proceeds of the public auction, method of distribution, etc. The national tax in this case is subject to distribution as the "amount in arrears requested for delivery" under Article 81(1)2 of the former National Tax Collection Act, and as prescribed in the latter part of Article 83(1) of the former National Tax Collection Act, the request for distribution was made on or before October 5, 2012, which prepared a distribution statement as prescribed by the latter part of Article 83(1) of the former National Tax Collection Act. Accordingly, the defendant, in accordance with the principle of national tax priority, should have priority over the intervenor's claims for the additional collection of the national tax in this case

(2) The defendant's assertion

The ownership of the instant shares was transferred from KimA, a person liable to pay the national tax of this case toCC fisheries by fully paying the purchase price on September 13, 2012 in the public sale procedure for the instant shares. As such, if the ownership of the seized property is transferred to a purchaser due to the sale by public sale, the seizure becomes null and void, and thus, the seizure cannot be conducted for the collection of national taxes, etc. against a delinquent taxpayer, and the Plaintiff loses the right to request the delivery of the property already owned by a third party, and thus the disposition of this case excluding the subject of distribution is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 56, etc. of the National Tax Collection Act, where the procedure for disposition on default by another tax authority or civil compulsory execution is already underway with respect to the property owned by a delinquent taxpayer, the tax authority may not request the delivery of the amount in arrears in the relevant procedure, and where the request for delivery is deemed to be a demand for distribution or distribution made within the period prescribed by the Act, it may receive

Meanwhile, Article 81(1)2 of the former National Tax Collection Act, which applies to this case, provides that "national taxes, additional dues, and local taxes which have been requested to be delivered" as one of the tax claims that can be distributed in the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, and the latter part of Article 83(1) provides that the request for distribution shall be made by the time when the distribution statement is prepared, unless the completion date of the request for distribution is separately provided, and in particular, Article 83(2) provides that the disposition on default shall be completed by the time when the distribution statement is prepared. In addition, there are cases concerning the seizure of claims, however, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of claims by disposition on default shall continue to exist at least until the completion date of the distribution procedure based on the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1019, Apr.

In contrast, according to Articles 67(2) and (5), and 68-2(1), etc. of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527 of Apr. 4, 201), the head of a tax office shall determine and publicly notify the closing date of the request for distribution at the time of public sale, and the closing date of the request for distribution shall be prior to the first bidding date, and the head of a tax office shall request the head of a tax office to distribute the distribution by the closing date of the request for distribution pursuant to Article 81(1). In addition, there is a clear different attitude as to the closing date of the request for distribution (i.e., the request for distribution was restricted pursuant to the amended National Tax Collection Act, if the case was subject to the above amended National Tax Collection Act, but the pertinent provisions of the former National Tax Collection Act applicable to the instant case differs as seen earlier

In addition, Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "National taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears shall be collected in preference to other public charges or claims," so that tax claims such as national taxes can be distributed in preference to other public charges or claims in the distribution procedure of compulsory execution.

(2) Regarding the instant case, the pertinent national tax is the national tax requested to be distributed to the public auction procedure of the instant case, which was conducted in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default, and is subject to allocation of the sales price of the instant shares. The Plaintiff Commissioner of the National Tax Office, the taxing authority of the instant national tax, requested the delivery within the period of the request for distribution under the said Act, and completed the request for distribution. Since the instant national tax is a priority over the Intervenor’s additional collection claim pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is reasonable to allocate the pertinent national tax prior to the above additional collection charge (In addition, in light of the legal principles as

No seizure shall be deemed to have lost its effect).

(3) On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the ownership of the shares of this case was transferred to the purchaser due to the sale price in full, and the seizure becomes null and void, it cannot be made a seizure for collecting national taxes, etc. against the delinquent taxpayer, and the plaintiff has no right to request the delivery of the property already owned by a third party.

However, according to the aforementioned legal principles and relevant laws and regulations, even if the subject matter of the disposition for arrears is sold in the course of the disposition for arrears, even if the new attachment for the collection of national taxes against the delinquent taxpayer cannot be made until the distribution procedure is completed, the effect of the initial attachment shall not be deemed to be maintained until the distribution procedure is completed. In particular, if the subject matter of the disposition for arrears is sold through the procedure for the disposition for arrears and the ownership of the subject matter is transferred to the purchaser, the national tax authority may demand a delivery of the proceeds from the sale of the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer within the specified period under the National Tax Collection Act, so long as the subject matter of the disposition for arrears can be distributed to the purchaser within the specified period under the National Tax Collection Act, as long as the subject matter of the disposition for arrears was sold to the purchaser in the procedure for the disposition for arrears, like the Defendant’s assertion, it is insufficient to conclude that the request for delivery of the national tax of this case was made unfairly against the third party’s property

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1462 Decided February 14, 1992, the defendant relied on his claim, where the tax authority initiates the attachment registration of the property owned by the delinquent and initiates the procedure for disposition on default and transfers the property to a third party during the public auction procedure, and the ownership transfer registration has been completed;

Effect of registration of seizure shall take effect with respect to the amount of tax for which tax liability was established prior to such registration.

It is effective only to the delinquent amount, and since the delinquent amount arising from the tax amount for which the former owner's tax liability has been established after the completion of the above registration is not effective, the disposition to distribute it is unlawful. Thus, if the real estate registered as attachment under the National Tax Collection Act is transferred to a third party and the registration of transfer of ownership is completed, the case is different from this case (In addition, Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, which is the provision that claims that the seizure has become invalidated in the procedure of the public sale of stocks in this case, is a provision concerning the case where the seizure is registered as a result of the disposition on default on the real estate, and is not directly related to this case, which is the procedure

In addition, Supreme Court Decision 98Da24396 delivered on August 211, 1998, which the Defendant invoked, where the object was transferred to a third party while a compulsory auction is registered and the ownership transfer registration is completed, and there was a request for the delivery of national taxes before the sale thereafter, the right of preferential collection of national taxes can not be estimated because the right of preferential collection of national taxes should not be distributed preferentially to the proceeds from the sale of the national taxes requested after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the third party for the real estate for the purpose of auction, and the issue is whether the national tax claim for the property transferred to a third party from the taxpayer before seizure due to the disposition on default is the issue of whether the right of provisional payment of national taxes has been granted to the property transferred to a third party from the taxpayer before seizure due to the disposition on default. This issue is different from this issue.

subsection (b) of this section.

(4) The national tax quota procedure that realizes the ultimate satisfaction of various claims, including national taxes, by directly distributing money following the disposition on default as well as involvement by many interested parties is a strong area where it is necessary to ensure uniform and consistent enforcement in accordance with the explicit provisions rather than any other procedure. For the foregoing reasons, as long as the instant disposition was conducted on a premise different from the Supreme Court’s precedent regarding the explicit provisions under the National Tax Collection Act applicable to the instant case and the effective maintenance period of seizure, the instant disposition is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim by the director of the tax office of the plaintiff's distribution among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the claim by the plaintiff's Republic of Korea is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.