2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On May 4, 200, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the 00do 00,000 Do 290 Do 290 Do 294 m2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) with respect to the 00 Do 00,000 Do 00,000 00 Do 120,000,000 00 Do 0136, the debtor, and the creditor as the Plaintiff.

B. On September 7, 2001, Defendant SS completed the attachment registration for the instant real estate as of September 7, 2001, No. 18750, Sept. 3, 2001.

C. GG completed the attachment registration on March 8, 2002, No. 7051 of the above registry office’s receipt of the instant real estate on March 8, 2002, based on the attachment on March 5, 2002.

D. Meanwhile, Defendant AA Corporation is entrusted with the collection of pension premiums and employment and industrial accident compensation insurance premiums in addition to health premiums pursuant to Article 88 of the National Pension Act and Article 4 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. from January 1, 2011.

E. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate with the instant court 00 0000, and on October 25, 2013, according to the order to commence voluntary auction of the instant real estate upon the commencement of the instant court’s decision.

F. During the instant voluntary auction procedure, Defendant AAAB (the Vice Governor in charge of 00 North Korea) filed a claim against each of 15,184,620 won in total, including the amount of global income tax, value-added tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc. (the statutory due date from March 11, 1998 to June 26, 200), the amount of 9,835,520 won in arrears (the due date from March 11, 1998 to June 26, 200) and the amount of 5,349,100 won in arrears (the due date from March 11, 1998 to June 26, 200); Defendant SS filed a claim against each of 329,90 won in total, including the amount of global income tax, value-added tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc. (the statutory due date from May 31, 200 to December 11, 2013).

G. On May 23, 2014, the judicial assistant officers of this Court, on the date of distribution, distributed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

With regard to the order of priority, Defendant SS’s national tax claim takes precedence over the insurance premium claim of Defendant AAA Corporation, Defendant AAA Corporation’s insurance premium claim takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s national tax claim of Defendant SS, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants take priority over the Plaintiff’s national tax claim of Defendant SS, and thus, the order of priority conflict between the rights to receive payment and the Defendants distributed the so-called so-called circular circulation dividend as indicated in the attached

H. According to the above-mentioned circular dividends, the judicial assistant of this court, among KRW 106,736,721, the amount of credit amount of KRW 9,468,480 (the Vice Governors of 00 North Korea under the jurisdiction of the defendant AAAB) in the order of one of the 106,736,721 won to be actually distributed, the sum of KRW 9,468,480 (the total of KRW 15,184,620, the due date for payment of which is earlier than the date of establishing the plaintiff's right to collateral security, was recognized as the amount of credit, and KRW 9,468,480,480, the total of KRW 11,781,580, the amount of credit amount of total of KRW 108,580,000 among the amount of credit amount of KRW 15,184,620, the amount of credit amount of total of KRW 1081,501,20100.3

A. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the entire amount distributed by the Defendants on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 29, 2014, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 to 3, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 4, and No. 5

5-1, 2-2 Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, to delete the dividend amount to the Defendants and distribute it to the Plaintiff.

(2) The court shall correct the distribution schedule of this case.

A. Absence of insurance premium claim against GG for the SS

(b) Expiration of extinctive prescription;

1) Since GG’s insurance premium claims against SS are delinquent insurance premiums from March 1998 to March 200, the three-year extinctive prescription has expired.

2) Since the taxation claim against the Defendant SS is a delinquent national tax claim arising from May 2, 200 to February 2001, the five-year extinctive prescription has expired.

(c) argument that the claim is not a priority claim.

1) The Plaintiff’s right to collateral security on the instant real property is prior to the payment deadline of the industrial accident insurance premium.

Before the registration of seizure of GG on the instant real property has been effected, the registration of such creation

Since the plaintiff's right to collateral security debt was completed, insurance premium claims against GG's right to collateral security debt.

The priority shall prevail.

2) The Plaintiff’s right to collateral security against the instant real estate is a country against Defendant SS.

Since the establishment registration was completed prior to the statutory date, the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security debt has been registered.

3. Determination

A. The assertion that there is no insurance premium claim for GG’s SS

Eul's evidence 1-1, 2, Eul's evidence 2-4, Eul's evidence 5, 6-1, 2, and Eul's evidence 7

According to each entry, SS operating a business with the trade name of 00 gas stations. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Aug. 1998>

3. Arrears in the payment of the employment insurance premiums and industrial accident insurance premiums which have been notified during the period from November 199 to the payment thereof.

In fact, during the period from March 1998 to November 1, 1999, SS is delinquent insurance premiums and arrears.

It is recognized that the sum of gold constitutes 9,468,480.

The Plaintiff’s employment insurance premium and industrial accident insurance premium that the Plaintiff notified the SG to the SS.

imposed and collected disposition documents, notice, demand notice, overdue charges, collection disposition documents, etc.;

Insurance premium claims for GG’s SS in light of the fact that the GG did not submit it to the court

claim that each of the above insurance premium claims does not exist, but shall not be less than 15 years from the date of the occurrence of each such insurance premium claim

It appears that the time limit for document preservation by GG would have lapsed with simple drawing, as above.

It cannot be deemed that there is no insurance premium claim solely on the ground that no document exists.

C. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Claim for the completion of extinctive prescription

- - Other

1) As to Defendant AA Corporation

Articles 41 and 42-4 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

According to Paragraph (Interruption of Prescription) and Article 168 (Interruption of Prescription) of AA Act, insurance premiums, etc. shall be collected.

may have been extinguished by prescription if it has not been exercised for three years, but in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default;

When a seizure is made, the running of the extinctive prescription is interrupted, and the extinctive prescription interrupted as above is interrupted by the seizurer.

A new proceeding shall take place upon the expiration of the period.

GG according to each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, 3 of Eul, 1-1, 2, and 1-2, 3

the insurance premium of 2,393,090 won, employment insurance premium of 4,969,60 won, other than the quarter of 98, in which SS is delinquent.

PS owned 00 00 - 306-8 - 306-8 real estate in arrears

The fact that the attachment was made on December 5, 200 by the receipt of the registry office of the District Court No. 53354 on December 5, 200, and the above attachment registration

On January 13, 2003, it was cancelled on the same day as the above real estate was awarded at will due to voluntary auction, and the SS group recognized the completion of the attachment registration on March 8, 2002 on the real estate of this case, based on SS’s total amount of industrial accident insurance premium of KRW 2,393,090, employment insurance premium of KRW 4,969,600, other than 2000, in arrears.

Therefore, the statute of limitations on delinquent insurance premium claims against GG for the SSS was interrupted due to the seizure of real estate located in 00 00 - 00 - 306 - 306-8, and the statute of limitations on the above insurance premium claims by GG for the same insurance premium claims shall not expire even at the time of seizing the instant real estate again. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part has no merit.

2) As to Defendant SS

According to Articles 27 and 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised within five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right, the extinctive prescription shall expire. Such extinctive prescription shall cease to exist as a seizure. Such interrupted extinctive prescription shall commence anew from the time when the period from the time of

However, according to Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the defendant SS seized the real estate of this case on September 3, 2001, which was five years prior to the legal due date of each national tax, with the amount of KRW 7,005,230, value-added tax (legal due July 25, 2000), KRW 1,473,350, value-added tax (legal due date January 25, 2001), KRW 3,798,910 as the seizure tax item. < Amended by Act No. 6538, Sep. 3, 2001>

Therefore, since the statute of limitations of each of the above national tax claims was interrupted by the above seizure, the plaintiff

The above assertion is without merit.

(c) argument that the claim is not a priority claim.

1) Defendant SS

A) National taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Collection shall take precedence over other claims: Provided, That chonsegwon, a pledge before the statutory deadline for a taxation claim;

Certificate, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, that the establishment of a right or mortgage has been registered or recorded;

If property is sold, the national tax or additional dues (as for the property) out of the proceeds of the sale;

In the case of collecting national taxes and additional dues (excluding excess national taxes and additional dues), the same shall not apply to the claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, a pledge or a mortgage.

B) Accordingly, the order of priority between the secured claims of tax and mortgage shall be the statutory date and the theory of taxation.

It is necessary to follow the pre-registration date.

However, according to the above facts in this case, the statutory due date for the taxation claims held by the defendant SS against SS is from May 4, 2000 to April 1, 2001, which was after May 31, 2000, establishing the right to collateral security for the real estate of this case, and thus the secured claim of the plaintiff's right to collateral security shall take precedence over the taxation claims of the defendant SS. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is with merit.

2) Defendant AAA Corporation

A) The former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003)

former Employment Insurance Act (Law No. 7048, Dec. 31, 2003) which applies mutatis mutandis the provisions of Articles 74, 76 and 76

section 65 of this title) is subject to the collection of premiums and money to be collected under such laws.

As to the priority of national and local taxes, it shall be next to that of national and local taxes, which shall be collected.

It should be viewed that the order is higher than that of various public charges and general claims.

In this article, national and local taxes refer to national and local taxes which are subordinate to mortgage claims.

It should be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17898 delivered on March 9, 199).

However, the collection of insurance premiums for employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance in force since January 1, 2005, etc.

Article 30 of the Act on the Management of Insurance Premiums, etc. under this Act shall be excluded from national taxes and local taxes.

Article 74 and 76 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 65 of the former Employment Insurance Act provide that "If insurance premiums, etc. are collected from proceeds from sale by selling an asset for which the establishment of a right of lease on a deposit basis, a pledge, or a mortgage is proved by the time limit for payment of insurance premiums, etc., this shall not apply to claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, a pledge, or a mortgage." In addition, the Addenda provides that "the insurance premiums and other charges to be collected or paid under the previous Employment Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be governed by the previous Employment Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act." Since Article 74 and 76 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 65 of the former Employment Insurance Act are deleted from the employment insurance premiums and the industrial accident compensation insurance premiums, the payment deadline prior to January 1, 2005 is lower than the national taxes, local taxes and mortgage claims regardless of the time

B) Therefore, according to the above facts, the payment deadline for the industrial accident insurance premiums and employment insurance premiums, which GG has against SS, falls under the portion transferred on or before January 1, 2005, which was enforced the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance from March 11, 1998 to March 11, 1999, and thus, the industrial accident insurance premiums and employment insurance premiums are subordinate to the Plaintiff’s mortgage claims regardless of the payment deadline. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is well-grounded.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff's collateral security claims shall take precedence over the defendants' claims in the dividend order.

Since the auction court's insurance premium claims against GG from March 1998 to March 1, 1999, the time limit for payment from March 1, 1998, the time limit for payment of the insurance premium claims of the GG, which was prior to the date of registering the establishment of the Plaintiff's creation of a neighboring mortgage, shall take precedence over the Plaintiff's insurance premium claims, and the Defendant SS's taxation claims shall take precedence over the Plaintiff's insurance premium claims, and the Plaintiff's mortgage claims shall take precedence over the Plaintiff's national tax claims, and the Plaintiff's mortgage claims are deemed to have a circular relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the distribution order, and the amount of KRW 4,807,996 out of the actual amount to be distributed by distributing dividends is illegal.

Ultimately, among the distribution schedule prepared on May 23, 2014, this court should correct the dividend amount of Defendant AAA Corporation and the dividend amount of KRW 4,660,584 to Defendant SS Tax Director, respectively, as KRW 97,268,141 (=97,268,141 + KRW 4,807,996 + KRW 4,660,584) from among the distribution schedule prepared on May 23, 2014.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified, and it is decided to accept this claim.

(2) The decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.