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

Cheong-gu Office

In the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 25, 2013 with respect to the real estate auction case in Seoul Central District Court 2012tagi40616, it is corrected that the dividend amount of the defendant's Republic of Korea should be distributed to the plaintiff, the dividend amount of the defendant's Seoul Central District Court to the defendant, the dividend amount of the defendant's Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the OOO, and the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

A. On February 6, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment of the maximum debt amount of the OOOOOE (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) on the O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong (hereinafter referred to as “O-dong”). On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment of the maximum debt amount of the OOOE on

B. On October 25, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with respect to the instant real estate. On October 25, 2013, the said court drafted a distribution schedule with the content that: (a) out of the remainder of the OOO members subtracting KRW 5,018,440 for enforcement expenses from the total sales proceeds and interest accrued therefrom; and (b) out of the other OO members of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the CCC-backed Specialized Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) shall be distributed to the Gangnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (c) the rest of OOO members shall be divided to the Defendants, who are joint three-order owners, who are divided among the Defendants, and distribute the amount of claims to the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “OOO members”); and (d) the Defendant Republic of Korea (OOO members), respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows and seeks correction of the distribution schedule of this case as stated in the purport of the claim.

A. The Plaintiff: (a) set up each right to collateral security on the instant real estate and lent a total amount of OOOB to ParkB; (b) according to each tax payment certificate received from ParkB at the time of lending the said money, ParkB did not have any national or local taxes in arrears; and (c) the Plaintiff lent money to ParkB with trust in the contents of the above tax payment certificate. Nevertheless, the Defendants’ assertion of tax claims against ParkB is unlawful in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea submitted a written request for delivery stating the statutory date of the capital gains tax subject to distribution under the instant distribution schedule twice on February 20, 2013 and June 7, 2013, as of March 1, 2012, subsequent to the date when the Plaintiff’s establishment registration was completed, the statutory date of the capital gains tax subject to distribution under the instant distribution schedule was later than the date when the Plaintiff’s establishment registration was completed. As such, even if Defendant Republic of Korea submitted a written request for delivery stating the statutory date as of December 31, 2011, the statutory date was later on July 8, 2013 and October 14, 2013, Defendant Republic of Korea cannot receive dividends in preference to the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not seize the instant real estate against ParkB, and did not file a request for delivery by the deadline for the completion of the demand for distribution, and thus, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot receive the distribution prior to the Plaintiff with respect to the tax claim against ParkB.

3. Determination as to the assertion that the Defendants violated the principle of trust protection

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5-1, 5-2:

ParkB-B’s certificate of local tax tax payment prepared by the head of Sejong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 6, 2013 and March 19, 2013, and submitted it to the Plaintiff by obtaining the certificate of national tax payment prepared by the head of Sejong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the head of Sejong-gu Tax Office on two occasions, and each of the above certificate of tax payment can be recognized as stating that ParkB-B did not have any tax in arrears as of the issue date.

In order to apply the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of trust protection to the acts of tax authorities in tax law relations, first, the tax authorities should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the tax authorities' opinions, third, the taxpayer should act in trust and what is the reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance. Fourth, the tax authorities' disposition contrary to the above misunderstanding on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the Privacy. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu593, Apr. 23, 1985; 2003Da18401, May 26, 2006.

4. Determination as to the assertion that the defendant Republic of Korea made a request for delivery with an erroneous statutory date stated

On February 6, 2012 and April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of each of the following neighboring mortgages on the instant real estate. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence 6-1 through 4 and Eul evidence 1, ParkB reported to the director of the regional tax office of the regional tax office on December 31, 201, the Defendant Republic of Korea reported the OOOOO of capital gains tax to the director of the regional tax office of the regional tax office on February 31, 2011; on February 20, 2013 and thereafter, on June 7, 2013, 2013, the statutory date of the said capital gains tax was March 1, 2012; the tax amount was to be granted as OOOO, and the legal date was to be granted as OOO on July 8, 2013; and the legal date was to be granted as OO on December 31, 2013.

According to the main sentence of Article 35(1) and proviso of Article 35(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, tax base and tax

In the case of national taxes for which tax liability becomes final and conclusive upon the report of the amount, the statutory date for determining the priority between the national tax claim and the secured claim of the right to collateral security shall be the date of the report, and the national tax claim shall have priority in the auction procedure unless the secured claim of the mortgage registered before the date of the report is determined (see Articles 105 and 110 of the Income Tax Act).On the other hand, the transfer income tax, which is a national tax, belongs to the tax for which the tax liability becomes final and conclusive according to the tax base and the report of the tax amount (see Articles 105 and 110 of the Income Tax Act).On the other hand, even if the tax authority erroneously stated the statutory date in the auction procedure, if the request for the payment of the amount in arrears is legitimate, the priority under the substantive law

According to the above facts, the statutory due date of the capital gains tax requested by the defendant Republic of Korea in the auction procedure of this case is December 31, 201, on which the tax base was reported by ParkB, and it is apparent that it is later than before the time the plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of each fundamental right to the real estate of this case. Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea has the right to receive dividends in preference to the plaintiff's respective secured claims regarding the capital gains tax of this case. Although the defendant Republic of Korea made a request for delivery on two occasions on February 20, 2012 and June 7, 2012, the priority does not expire even if the defendant Republic of Korea erroneously stated the statutory due date of the capital gains tax of this case and made a request for delivery. Therefore, it is legitimate to prepare a dividend table by which the auction court preferentially distributes to the plaintiff's claims of the defendant Republic of Korea in preference to the plaintiff in the auction procedure of

5. Determination as to the assertion that Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not request seizure or delivery

Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions No. 7-1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1 and the fact-finding with the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of this Court, ParkB reported OOO of the local income tax on December 31, 201, and the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government seized the real estate of this case on October 30, 201, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government attached the real estate on the same day on the grounds of delinquency in payment of the local income tax on the local income tax, and entrust the registration of attachment entry to the real estate of this case as the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 21, 2012; thereafter, the registration of voluntary commencement order of auction of this case on December 21, 2012, which was made on the real estate of this case; the registration of the completion order of auction of this case was made on December 31, 2013 after deducting the total amount of tax to be paid on March 21, 2019, 2013.

Article 8 (1) 1 (a) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that local income tax shall be the Special Metropolitan City tax, and

According to Article 6 of the same Act, the head of a local government may delegate or entrust part of his/her authority prescribed in the Framework Act on Local Taxes to the head of another local government. According to Article 5(1), (3)4, and (5) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Basic Market Price (amended by Ordinance No. 5497, May 16, 2013), the Mayor shall delegate the imposition and collection of the market price to the head of the Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the relevant taxable subject of taxation. However, the delinquent taxes imposed on a person who fails to pay an amount of at least 5,00,000 won per case among the market prices imposed by the head of the Gu shall be directly imposed or collected by the Mayor, and the dispositions imposed by the head of the Gu on the delinquent taxes shall be deemed to have been made by the Mayor. Meanwhile, in accordance with Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 98 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the request for the issuance of local taxes may be made only by the expiration date of demand for distribution.

According to the above facts, as of December 31, 201, the statutory due date of the above local income tax reported by ParkB on December 31, 201, the Plaintiff was prior to the time when the establishment registration of each of the instant real estate was completed, and on October 30, 2012, the seizure of the instant real estate by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 30, 2012 is deemed to have been made by the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Basic Plan for Market Price. As long as the above seizure was completed on October 30, 2012 of the instant real estate, even if the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government did not request the delivery of the said local income tax by the completion date of the auction procedure in this case, the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government may assert the effect of requesting the delivery of the said local income tax even if the auction court did not request the Plaintiff to pay the said local income tax in preference to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is legitimate to prepare a distribution schedule in this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.