2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In the first place, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from October 11, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 5% per annum from October 11, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (a claim for damages arising from unlawful acts or a claim for return of unjust enrichment).

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows, except for the addition or supplementary decision as to the part on which the plaintiff argues as the grounds for appeal, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

1) If a person liable to pay taxes exercises the right of preferential payment of taxes on a number of immovable property

The provisions on the same mortgage apply mutatis mutandis. If the Defendant requested delivery on the correct statutory date and received a dividend in the public auction procedure for the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, it did not infringe the Plaintiff’s right to the dividends on the land No. 3 of this case. However, since the Defendant’s right to the land No. 3 of this case was infringed by the Plaintiff’s right to the dividends on the land No. 3 of this case by claiming

2) Although the Defendant erroneously notified the statutory date in the public sale procedure for the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and AA had a claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to the portion unfairly distributed on the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, it constitutes unjust enrichment and thus making double profits by receiving dividends in preference to the Plaintiff constitutes a return of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

3) In the absence of the Defendant’s negligence, AAA received dividends from the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (OO +OO) by the Defendant. In the public sale procedure of the land No. 3 of this case, the said AA could have received dividends from the OO won, which is the transfer income amount of the instant transfer income claimed by the Defendant, less the amount of OO won distributed from the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s damages or the amount of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment, which is the amount exceeding the said amount, out of the actual dividends paid from the land No. 3 of this case, constitute the Plaintiff’s damages or the amount of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to compensate or return the said amount to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 368 of the Civil Act on Joint Mortgage shall apply by analogy in the event that a number of real estate owned by a tax obligor is held at the same time as a joint mortgagee with respect to the whole real estate. Article 368 of the Civil Act provides that if a number of real estate owned by a tax obligor is held at the same time as a joint mortgagee, the joint mortgagee shall have a significant interest in the auction price of each real estate. However, Article 368 of the Civil Act provides that if a number of real estate owned by a tax obligor is held at the same time as a joint mortgagee, the joint mortgagee shall have a preferential interest in the auction price of each real estate. However, in cases of so-called simultaneous dividends where multiple real estate proceeds are distributed in the same distribution procedure, the owner of the real estate, the next mortgagee, or other creditors have a significant interest in the auction price of which is paid to the joint mortgagee. Article 368 (1) of the same Act provides that if the same simultaneous dividends are held at the same time, the joint mortgagee shall be held at the same time to the extent that it does not infringe a joint mortgagee’s right of preference (see 20).

2) Determination on the claim for damages caused by a tort

In light of such legal principles, even if preferential rights are exercised on various real estate owned by a taxpayer, a joint mortgagee is in a position similar to a joint mortgagee. However, in principle, a joint mortgagee may exercise multiple preferential rights at the same time or at a different time, and even if only a part of the mortgagee is exercised, he/she may be paid the full amount of secured claims from such auction proceeds: Provided, That Article 368 of the Civil Act is intended to adjust the interests of the owners of each real estate and the next mortgagee and other creditors by dividing the liability to the extent that such joint mortgagee does not infringe upon the right of preference, and it is not the purpose of limiting the joint mortgagee’s right of preference and preferential rights of preference. As seen in the instant case, even if a public auction on several real estate owned by a taxpayer was conducted at a different time and exercised at a later time, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it does not constitute an abuse of rights. However, if the requirements for a joint mortgagee’s preferential rights of preference are erroneously recorded in the land at the same time under Article 368(2) of the Civil Act, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on the Plaintiff’s tort, premised on the Defendant’s exercise of the above preferential right.

3) Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

As seen above, the Defendant’s claim for delivery of the land of this case to the public sale procedure for the land of this case is based on the right to preferential reimbursement held by the tax claimant, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant acquired profits without any legal ground. In addition, in the public sale procedure for the land of this case 1 and 2 as at the corrected statutory date, the amount paid in excess of the amount that the Defendant could have received after receiving dividends in consideration of the ratio of liability according to the value of each land in the case of simultaneous dividends in the public sale procedure for the land of this case shall be deemed to have been able to claim a return of unjust enrichment against AA. However, the Defendant must exercise the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against AA, and there is no ground to deem that the right to preferential reimbursement for the land of this case cannot be exercised. Accordingly, even if the Defendant exercised the right to preferential reimbursement in the public sale procedure for the land of this case without exercising the right to preferential reimbursement against AA, it cannot be deemed as abuse of rights, and it is also difficult to view it as

Ultimately, the plaintiff cannot accept the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.