The director of the tax office under the control of the head of the tax office is responsible for the default of value-added tax.

Pursuant to this, ○○○ owned by KimB and 1/2 equity shares of 00 square meters of 00 ○○○○-Do, ○○○○-Do, ○○○○, ○○,

The 1/2 shares of 1172m2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "real estate of this case") in the same Ri △△-△ road.

The real estate of this case was seized at the request of the director of ○○ Tax Office.

On August 28, 2017, the public auction procedure conducted by the court was sold in 66,110,000 won to JeongCC.

The Plaintiff as a creditor of the construction price for KimB, and the claim amounting to KRW 579,304,00 in the above public sale procedure

On September 6, 2017, the Korea Asset Management Corporation requested to report and distribute the claim.The sale price and the sale price of the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

6,114,220 won plus 4,220 won for expenses for disposition on default shall be 2,387,950 won for expenses for disposition on default.

63,726,950 won was distributed to the defendant (○○ Tax Office).

However, among the defendant's taxation claims, value-added tax amounting to occasional notice of September 201 185,036,000 won

and additional dues 132,115,590 won are imposed without grounds, and the defendant is in the above public auction procedure.

It is received from the proceeds of sale for the above part without any legal cause.

Therefore, the defendant imposed value-added tax on the money received in the above public sale procedure.

money excluding KRW 2,530,630 and KRW 6,049,290 to be distributed to senior creditors;

5,147,030 won (=63,726,950 won-2,530,630 won-6,049,290 won) against the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment

There is a duty to refund and pay damages for delay after the date of unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

The Plaintiff, as evidence in this case, produced evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, 2, 3, and 4 of evidence No. 1-2.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant imposed value-added tax on KimB without any basis.

There is no evidence to prove that a disposition is null and void, and the plaintiff's assertion will proceed further.

It shall not be accepted even without examining.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 5,147,030 won with 55% interest per annum from September 6, 2017 to the day of delivery of the complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.