Plaintiff (Appellant)

AA City

Defendant (Appellant)

Korea

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 35,490,000 against the Plaintiff on June 18, 2012 shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,443,739 won with 5% interest per annum from February 3, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. As to the OO-dong O-dong 604 O-dong 205 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the National Health Insurance Corporation seized the instant real estate on December 30, 201; ② the Plaintiff on January 3, 201; ③ the Defendant on January 14, 201; ④ the GO-dong 15 March 15, 201, respectively.

B. Since then, the procedure for compulsory auction was commenced on April 19, 201 by the application for compulsory auction by the non-party company’s wage creditors KimA and two other parties, the wage creditors of the non-party company, and the compulsory auction was conducted on April 19, 201. At the above auction procedure on May 23, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on the aggregate of KRW 1,132,807,440 of the national taxes, including the gross real estate holding tax in arrears by the non-party company on May 23, 2011; (b) on June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff KRW 28,195,490 (= property tax on buildings + KRW 9,000 on land).

One property tax claim was filed for each delivery of KRW 28,186,490.

C. In allocating the amount of KRW 402,408,09 to be actually distributed on the date of distribution implemented on February 3, 2012, the above auction court: (a) held that, in the first priority order, 21,292,88 won, 14,185,037 won, 25,683 won, 25,683 won, and 25,695,683 won, the defendant shall be deemed as the pertinent taxpayer; and (b) made a distribution schedule to OO, which is the lessee, 68,936,690 won, 690 won, and 3rd, the defendant shall be deemed as the owner; and (c) made a distribution schedule to 260,000,000 won, and 10,742,751 won, in the order of 5th, the lessee, as the lessee.

D. However, among the Defendant’s above dividends, the pertinent taxes on the instant real estate was only KRW 3,648,321 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax. The said taxes were to be corrected to KRW 242,098,930 of the amount of claims) against the Defendant, as OO district court 2012Kadan10133, and the said court filed a lawsuit of demurrer to distribution against the Defendant. On June 15, 2012, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the amount of dividends against the Defendant shall be corrected to KRW 8,447,085, and KRW 68,936,690 of the amount of dividends against the Defendant as KRW 60,489,60, respectively.” The said ruling became final and conclusive at that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, among the tax creditors, should first be paid dividends out of the amount of dividends of the defendant under Article 101 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, except for the remaining amount of KRW 3,648,321 out of the amount of dividends of the defendant under Article 101 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, but the remaining amount of KRW 10,742,751 out of the amount of the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the property tax on the land (=28,186,490, 490, 742,751) was paid to the defendant who is a subordinate tax payer (=28,186, 490, 490-10, 742, 751). Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 101 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that if an already attached property is seized pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, impositions of other local governments or national taxes related to the attachment thereof shall be collected prior to the request of the head of the competent tax office for delivery of those impositions. Article 101 (2) provides that if the property of a local government is seized according to the provisions of other local governments or to the disposition on default of the national taxes, those impositions of the local government related to the attachment shall be collected next to the request for delivery of the money collectible by the local government. This provision provides that the attachment of the property shall take precedence over the taxes for which attachment is requested by the head of the competent tax office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Da4384, May 27, 2005). Article 70 (1) provides that the attachment and attachment of the property shall take precedence over those of the government office which has already participated in the attachment and sale thereof shall be deemed to have been issued by the former National Health Insurance Corporation.

B. Determination

1) First, according to the health stand for the Plaintiff’s preferential distribution, and the above facts acknowledged, the above seizure by the Plaintiff on the instant real estate, which was already seized by the National Health Insurance Corporation, is a double seizure, and there is only the effect of a request for delivery or participation in the attachment. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive a dividend prior to other local taxes or national taxes requested for delivery or participation in the attachment,

2) Furthermore, if the amount that the Plaintiff is obligated to receive in the above auction procedure is distributed to the health class, the above amount of KRW 402,408,009 to be distributed to the obligees in preference to the Plaintiff is 326,376,889 won in total (i) each wage claim of KRW 21,292,88 won + 14,185,037 won in + 25,695,683 won in addition, (ii) the Defendant’s pertinent tax amount of KRW 3,648,321 + (iii) the pertinent tax amount of KRW 1,54,960 in OO of O260,00,000 + KRW 36,031,00 in total, KRW 76,3120 in total, KRW 76,031,031,031,120 in excess of the amount to be distributed to the Plaintiff, KRW 394,519,39539,200 in dividend amount

3) However, the Plaintiff already received dividends of KRW 10,742,751 exceeding KRW 1,531,836 in the above auction procedure, as seen earlier. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the fact that the amount to be paid by the Plaintiff is higher than the amount to be paid by the Plaintiff is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.