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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on August 25, 2016, the amount of dividends to the defendant in relation to the distribution procedure case (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution procedure in this case") by Jinwon District Court Branch 2016 x 00,000 won shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to 00,000,000 won, respectively.

A. With respect to the real estate owned by Nonparty 1, 2015, the Changwon District Court Branch Branch of Changwon District 】 2015k x real estate auction procedure was conducted by the head of Changwon District Court 】 on February 15, 2016. The Plaintiff, on February 15, 2016, was issued a decision of provisional seizure of the dividends claim to be paid by the Republic of Korea 】 (hereinafter referred to as the “decision of provisional seizure of this case”) with the Plaintiff’s claim claim amounting to KRW 20,00,000 as to the non-party 1’s damage claim against the Changwon District Court of Changwon District 】 2015k x x 15k x 2015 k x x 】

B. On March 14, 2016, the above auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, which is to be actually distributed by deducting the execution expenses on March 14, 2016, to the creditors of this case, to distribute the remaining amount of KRW 00,000,000 to the creditors of this case, and to distribute it to this △△△.

C. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1, 2016 branch court of the Changwon District Court of Changwon District 】 】 】 The plaintiff was sentenced to 5% per annum from January 22, 2016 to March 11, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

D. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order, stating that KRW 200,000,000 is able to collect the surplus claim of this case, by using the claim amounting to KRW 10,00,000,00, the original district court in the original district in the original district in the original district in the original district x 2016 x x 】 the provisional seizure of this case x the seizure of this case x the remainder 0,00,000.

E. Meanwhile, on March 21, 2016, the Defendant seized the surplus claim of this case on the ground that the total amount of capital gains tax and comprehensive real estate holding tax on △△△△ was KRW 00,000,000 as the claim claim amount.

F. In the instant distribution procedure for the surplus claim of this case, the distribution schedule was formulated with the content that distributes to the Defendant the amount of KRW 00,000,000, which is calculated by subtracting the execution cost, to the Defendant in the first order.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the auction procedure of this case, the defendant did not demand a distribution, thereby practically renounced the right to receive a dividend in the above auction procedure, and the defendant has the right to receive a repayment prior to other claims, so it is possible to obtain a sufficient satisfaction of claims in other real estate owned by △△△△, and it is an abuse of rights to receive a full distribution by participating in the distribution procedure of the surplus claim of this case and receiving a provisional attachment order for the surplus claim of this case, so it shall be deemed as an abuse of rights. Therefore, the payment of KRW 00,000 distributed to the defendant in the

B. Determination

On the other hand, Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "national taxes, additional dues or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public imposts and other claims," which takes precedence over general claims. As such, as long as the defendant holds national tax claims against △△△△△, the distribution schedule prepared with the defendant first priority in the distribution procedure of this case is legitimate.

Meanwhile, even if the defendant did not demand a distribution in the auction procedure of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant renounced the right to receive a distribution in the above auction procedure just because such circumstance alone, and the fact that the defendant can receive a repayment through other real estate owned by △△△△, etc., it cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights since the defendant received a distribution in the first order in the distribution procedure of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.