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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 21,351,820 won with 5% interest per annum from June 25, 2016 to the delivery 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.

(a) The plaintiff's additional registration of acquisition of claim and transfer of right to collateral security;

On January 19, 2005, KK and LL completed the registration of joint mortgage creation of maximum debt amount of KRW 750,000,000 as the recipient ○○○○○○○○○○ on January 19, 2005 with respect to each of the above real estates listed in the separate list owned by the above SS Bank Home (hereinafter referred to as “instant building according to the separate list”).

On December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff received part of the Promissory Notes from KK and completed the previous supplementary registration as to the entire share of the said KK’s collective security interest on December 24, 2010, on the ground of the transfer of the confirmed claim by the Suwon District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○, which was a transfer of the confirmed claim.

(b) Permission time, respective tax claims and seizure registration of the defendant;

The Young-si had a total of 870,844,830 won, including the pertinent tax, for SS Borrowing Home. However, each statutory period for the remaining tax claims, excluding the pertinent tax, is from July 19, 2004 to January 19, 2005. Further, on January 13, 2011, for the purpose of securing the pertinent tax claim, the provisional registration for each of the instant buildings was completed.

The defendant (the defendant transferred his jurisdiction to the Dongwon Tax Office on April 27, 2006) had a total of KRW 1,866,215,680 (hereinafter referred to as the "tax claim of this case") on the SP Borrowing Home, and each statutory deadline for the above tax claim is from July 25, 2005 to June 1, 2008.And the defendant completed the seizure registration of each of the buildings of this case in order to secure the above tax claim on October 27, 2005.

(c) Request for a public auction on each of the instant buildings in Permitted-si and the result of distribution;

On January 14, 2015, the Yongsan-si requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to hold a public auction on each of the instant buildings in order to receive a tax claim on the SS Bank Home. The Korea Asset Management Corporation, on December 23, 2015, took each of the instant public auction procedures (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant public auction procedures”) on the instant buildings and the instant buildings on June 24, 2016, and distributed each of the instant public auction proceeds as indicated in the 1st Table. The Defendant received each of the instant public auction procedures in the same manner as described in the 1, 2, and 3nd Table. The Defendant received each of the instant public auction procedures at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

당해세를 제외한 조세채권과 담보물권 사이의 우선순위는 그 법정기일과 담보물권설정일의 선후에 의하여 결정되는데, 피고의 이 사건 조세채권의 법정기일(2005. 7. 25. 〜 2008. 6. 1.)은 원고 근저당권부채권의 근저당권 설정일인 2005. 1. 19. 이후에 도래한다. 그러므로 원고는 피고보다 선순위권자이므로, 이 사건 공매절차에서 피고에 우선하여 매각대금을 배분받아야 한다. 그러나 피고는 이 사건 공매절차에서 원고에 우선하여 매각대금 중 221,351,820원을 배분받았고, 그로 인하여 원고는 매각대금을 전혀 배분받지 못하였다. 따라서 피고는 원고에게 위 221,351,820원을 부당이득으로반환할 의무가 있다.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Although the statutory deadline for the instant taxation claim arrives after the date of the Plaintiff’s establishment of the right to collateral security, the Defendant completed the registration of seizure of each of the instant buildings prior to the time when the statutory deadline comes earlier than the date of establishment of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security. Therefore, the Defendant was allocated KRW 221,351,820, which is to be distributed at the time of expropriation by the seizure prior to the date of establishment of the right to collateral security. Therefore, the Defendant

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In case where both a tax claim that has become due on the statutory due date and a tax claim that has become due after the date of establishment of the security right on the real estate for which the security right has been established due to the public notice, the priority between the tax claim and the security right except the pertinent tax shall be determined after the statutory due date and the date of establishment of the security right, and the proceeds from sale shall be distributed in the same order, and the priority among each tax claim shall be determined according to the seizure prior notice (Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9088 Decided November 24, 2005).

B. Whether the defendant unjust enrichment was made from the distribution amount

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the health team, the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the Korea Asset Management Corporation distributed KRW 221,351,820, which was distributed to the Defendant, to the Defendant, in full at the time prior to the date of establishment of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security, appears to have been fully distributed to the Defendant who completed the registration of seizure of each of the buildings of this case prior to the time of seizure, and (ii) if the Defendant did not first seize each of the buildings of this case more than the time of seizure, the above KRW 221,351,820, which was distributed to the Defendant, should have been distributed to the Defendant at the time of permission prior to the statutory due date. Thus, even if the Defendant received the above amount, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant sustained damages equivalent to the above amount, or it is difficult to deem that the Defendant suffered losses from the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.