2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/9 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OO and the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the day following the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case until the day of full payment.

A. In the case of an auction of real estate of OOE 2012, the head of the Gu filed a claim for delivery of the tax claim as described below.

B. On October 22, 2013, the auction court prepared the same distribution schedule as indicated in the attached Form that distributes OO won, which is the sum of the tax claims Nos. 1 through 7 on the grounds that the statutory deadline on the tax claims set forth in the table Nos. 1 through 7 against the delivery authority, is earlier than the date on which the Plaintiff’s establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage (the date on January 5, 2012) was completed. The auction court distributed the total amount of OO won to the Mean, as the above distribution schedule is finalized.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the date of registering the establishment of the Plaintiff’s neighboring mortgage was earlier than the statutory deadline for the tax claims 5, 6, and 7 set forth in the XX duty book, but the auction court exceeded it and distributed OO won in the aggregate of the tax claims 5, 6, and 7 set forth in the tax claims Nos. 5, 6, and 7, thereby the Defendant unjust enrichment and the Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the above amount.

2. Fact finding and judgment

A. Relevant legal principles

In distributing the proceeds from the sale of real estate in the auction procedure, the preferential relationship between tax claims and collateral security claims shall follow the date of registering the establishment of a mortgage and the date of statutory deadline for tax claims pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

However, when income tax withheld is paid, tax liability shall be established at the same time, and the amount of such tax shall be determined (Article 35 (1) (c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

On the other hand, in order to ensure the faithful fulfillment of the obligation prescribed by the tax law, additional tax is a kind of administrative sanction imposing the duty prescribed by the tax law on the person who violates the obligation in addition to the amount of tax calculated under the tax law without any justifiable reason. Thus, the statutory due date for additional tax is the date on which a tax payment notice is sent (Article 35(1) proviso 3(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

In addition, when national taxes are not paid by the due date, the amount collected in addition to the notified amount of national taxes under the National Tax Collection Act and the amount collected in addition to such amount at the time when national taxes are not paid by the due date after the due date for payment, which is naturally created and established under Article 21 and Article 22 of the National Tax Collection Act without the due date for payment, but the amount of principal taxes is determined at least after the due date for payment expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da74018, Feb. 8, 2002)

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Of the tax claims listed in Nos. 5, the principal tax, the remainder of the OOO won is the penalty tax, the additional tax, and the OO won among the tax claims listed in Nos. 6 is the principal tax, the remainder of OO won is the penalty tax and the additional tax.

2) The precision, which is a withholding agent of the tax claims Nos. 5, 6 and 6, was withheld from the relevant income tax when paying income to his/her employees in December 201.

3) Of the tax claims Nos. 5 and 6, the payment deadline of the principal tax among the tax claims is March 31, 2012, and the date of the payment notice of additional tax is March 8, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

(c) The relationship between the statutory date and the date on which the establishment of neighboring mortgage is registered;

1) In the case of tax claims Nos. 5 and 6

According to the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged as above, among the tax claims stated in the sequence 5 and 6, the statutory due date of the principal tax is December 31, 201; the statutory due date of additional tax is March 8, 2012; and the statutory due date of additional dues is April 1, 2012.

Therefore, the date of registering the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29697, Sept. 11, 2008) is behind the statutory due date of the principal tax among the tax claims stated in 5 and 6, but even though the statutory due date was mistakenly stated in the written application for the issuance of the amount of delinquent tax in the auction procedure, the right of priority based on the actual due date is not extinguished, as long as the request for the delivery was lawful. Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29697, Sept. 11, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29697, Sept. 11, 2008).

2) In the case of tax claims No. 7

The facts prior to the statutory date of the tax claim stated in No. 7 of the Plaintiff’s registration date of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage are no dispute between the parties.

D. Sub-committee

Thus, the auction court should have distributed to the plaintiff the plaintiff the sum of additional duties, additional duties, etc. among the tax claims listed in the No. 5 + additional duties and additional duties among the tax claims listed in the No. 6 + OOwon for the tax claims listed in the No. 7 No. 7) among the OO won distributed to the defendant on the date of distribution. Accordingly, the defendant obtained profits equivalent to the OO won and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff who is the next priority dividend holder.

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is the date of the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, to the day after March 4, 2014, where the Defendant deems it reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the obligation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.