2. Of the litigation costs, the part pertaining to the participation by the Plaintiff shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

수원지방법원 수원지방법원 성남지원 2013타경XXXXX호 부동산임의경매 사건에 관하여 위 법원이 2017. 2. 9. 작성한 배당표 중 나OO의 배당액 51,078,147원을 72,807,367원으로, 피고의 배당액 21,729,220원을 0원으로 각 경정한다.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap 1 through 5, 12, and Eul 1.

A. The registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) was completed on February 26, 199 by an O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the Seoul branch of the O branch of the O branch of the Seoul branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the registry of the 2 billion won claim, the debtor, the plaintiff and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “right to collateral security

B. The OOtax official under the Defendant attached the instant real estate on March 28, 200 based on the tax claims in arrears by the Plaintiff.

다. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 이 법원 2013타경XXXX호로 부동산임의경매절차가 진행되어, 2016. 12. 29. 유한회사 OOO콘도리조트 명의로 임의경매로 인한 매각을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 마쳐지고, 위 압류등기가 말소되었다.

D. On February 9, 2017, on the date of distribution of the said auction decision, this Court set up a distribution schedule with the Defendant (Otax secretary) and BO in order to set up a distribution schedule with the Defendant to distribute KRW 51,078,147, and KRW 21,729,220, respectively, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire dividend amount of the Defendant.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s taxation claim is a subordinate claim that became due after February 26, 199, the date of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, even if not, ② since February 26, 199, the statutory due date, and thus, the full amount of the amount distributed to the Defendant ought to be preferentially distributed to NaO, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security.

2) The defendant's assertion

① The extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s taxation claim was interrupted by a lawful seizure, and is newly undertaken after the release of the seizure by voluntary auction of the instant real estate. The extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s taxation claim was not completed, and ② the claim secured by the instant mortgage has already expired due to the completion of the prescription.

B. Determination

1) Whether the defendant's extinctive prescription expires

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s taxation claim was suspended by a lawful seizure on March 28, 200, which was conducted on March 28, 200, and was newly undertaken after the release of seizure by voluntary auction on December 29, 2016 (see Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Since it is apparent that five years have not elapsed from the date of the above cancellation, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription of the taxation claim has expired is without merit.

2) Whether the secured debt of the instant case is extinguished

A) The completion of extinctive prescription

In full view of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 12, around March 3, 1994, the plaintiff acquired a loan from OOO-dong O-2, 245-2, 1672.4m2 above the second apartment building on the nine-story above ground, and executed a business of constructing and selling OO-building, which is an aggregate building of the nine-story above, on the nine-story ground; the plaintiff borrowed KRW 2.3 billion from O-O for the purpose of securing land price, etc.; the plaintiff completed the above O-O building on March 30, 1996 and completed the registration of preservation of ownership thereof; the plaintiff acquired a loan from 05m20,000 won for the purpose of securing operating funds; the plaintiff's act of establishing the extinctive prescription period for each of the above 199m2, which is a junior 198m2, which has not been established for the purpose of securing the extinctive prescription period for each of the above O-O building.

B) Determination on the assertion on waiver of the statute of limitations interest

As a debtor of the secured claim of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the debtor of the secured claim of this case renounced the completion of the extinctive prescription.

살피건대, 갑 제12호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고가 나OO을 상대로 이 법원 2014가합XXXX호로 채무부존재확인의 소를 제기하였고, 그 소송 계속 중 2016. 9. 21.자 조정기일에서 '나OO은 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채권을 원고 보조참가인에게 양도하고, 그 반대급부로 원고 보조참가인은 나OO에게 2억 원을 지급하며, 원고는 나OO 및 원고 보조참가인에 대하여 위 피담보채권의 소멸시효 완성을 주장하지 아니한다'는 내용의 조정이 성립된 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

그러나 한편 위 증거에 의하면, 이 사건 부동산에 앞서 OO시 OO구 OO동 245-2 OOOO빌딩 제1층 제112호에 관하여 임의경매절차가 개시되었고, 위 경매절차에서 나OO에게 143,328,347원을 배당하는 내용의 배당표가 작성되자, 원고가 나OO의 배당액 전액에 대하여 이의하고 이 법원 2013가합XXXX호로 배당이의의 소를 제기한 사실, 위 소송에서 원고는 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채권인 대여금채권의 소멸시효가 완성되었다면서 소멸시효의 원용권을 행사한 사실, 위 법원은 2014. 2. 18. 위 대여금채권이 상사 소멸시효의 완성으로 소멸하였다는 취지의 원고 승소 판결을 선고하였고, 나OO이 제기한 항소 및 상고가 모두 기각되어 위 판결이 2015. 4. 1. 그대로 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이에 의하면 원고가 소멸시효 완성 이후 원용권을 행사함으로써 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채권은 이미 확정적으로 소멸하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 그 후 원고가 이를 철회하여 소멸시효완성의 이익을 포기하는 취지의 조정이 성립하였다고 하더라도, 이를 이유로 이 사건 부동산의 압류채권자로서 제3자인 피고에게 대항할 수는 없다고 봄이 상당하다.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that OO’s secured claim of this case was already extinguished by the completion of prescription prior to the preparation of the distribution schedule, and on a different premise, the above secured claim constitutes a priority claim over the Defendant’s taxation claim is without merit without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

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