2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

Cheong-gu Office

In the Daegu District Court Decision 2018Ma130 decided June 12, 2018, Daegu District Court Decision 47,745,69 won of dividends against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on June 12, 2018, as KRW 13,55,078, and KRW 0 won of dividends against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 34,190,621.

A. On January 9, 2014, the clan, the public disclosure of the Yongsung-dong branch, exchanged the registration of change of the registered titleholder with respect to the 23-1 forest land, 84,575 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) located in the Gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, and the registration of change of the registered titleholder, and exchanged the site and its ground buildings owned by Kim Young-si, the Gu, the Dong-dong, the 844-4, 84-5 forest land and its ground buildings

B. However, on the ground that the registration of change of the registered titleholder of the clan which is the public disclosure of the family clan clan clan clan clan, was made in accordance with the resolution of a null and void general meeting against the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-ro, 2014Kadan2705, which was the public disclosure of the family clan clan clan, and the registration of change of the registered titleholder of the clan clan which is the public disclosure of the family clan clan clan clan clan clan was filed for a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of change of the registered titleholder and the registration of transfer of the ownership of the clan Kim Jong-soo, which is the public announcement of the family clan clan Jong-dong branch, on the ground that the registration of change was made in accordance with the resolution of null and void, and the above judgment

C. In addition, Kim Jong-soo filed a lawsuit against the clan, etc., the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-ro 2014Gahap2542, on the ground that the above exchange contract becomes null and void, seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership of the clan, which is the public announcement of the Yong-dong branch, on the instant land, etc., and the above court rendered a favorable judgment of the plaintiff, and the conciliation was concluded in the appellate court, and accordingly, the registration of transfer of ownership of the clan, which is the public announcement of the Ydong branch of the instant land, was cancelled.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against the claim for the transfer income tax on the instant forest land and the claim for the refund of acquisition tax, etc. on the instant land, etc., reported and paid by the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, 2016Kadan10150, which declared and paid by the clan, which was the public announcement of the Youngdong branch, as the garnishee of the Defendant (competent authority: the Gu Seosan) and the Gu Seo-si, as the garnishee, as the preserved claim, and the said application was cited on May 12, 2016.

E. On July 5, 2016, the clan of the Nagoya-dong branch published a request for correction to the Defendant for refund of KRW 330,914,854 of the transfer income tax on the forest land of this case. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant, who was served the provisional seizure order on the said claim on May 13, 2016, did so and refunded the said transfer income tax to the clan, which was the public announcement of the Nagoya-dong branch.

F. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order from a provisional seizure to a claim for refund, such as the above acquisition tax, from the provisional seizure, and on April 9, 2018, the old U.S. Head of the Gu notified the attachment of the value-added tax and the capital gains tax of the clans, a public announcement of the Masung Cdong branch, on the ground that the sum of the value-added tax and the capital gains tax of the clans in arrears was in excess of KRW 3

G. Since the Daegu District Court, the Daegu District Court deposited KRW 48,018,260 for the acquisition tax and other refund amounting to KRW 347 in 2018, the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, and Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, 2018TTTTTTT 30, the distribution schedule was prepared that the Defendant received KRW 47,745,69 in preference to the Plaintiff.

H. However, ① It is improper to seize capital gains tax, the cancellation of which has already been confirmed, on the grounds of delinquency, and to seek the return of capital gains tax refunded to the clan that is the public disclosure of the Gongdong branch by mistake, is merely a civil claim and thus cannot be distributed first. ② Since the value-added tax in arrears was paid on October 31, 2016 and the decision of provisional seizure against the Plaintiff was delivered at the time of the delivery of the provisional seizure order of the Plaintiff’s claim, it cannot be distributed first. Therefore, the above distribution schedule should be revised to KRW 34,190,621 as dividends to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Restitution of refund of capital gains tax

According to the statement of evidence No. 10, the old U.S.A. was recognized as a disposition to recover the transfer income tax refund refund made to the clan of the same clan on or around January 2017. Thus, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it can be known that such disposition does not be attached on the ground that the transfer income tax had already been revoked, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was not attached for the reason that the transfer income tax was delinquent. Moreover, such a disposition to recover is a claim for the return of refund already paid by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act pursuant to Article 51(8) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act, which is recognized as having priority under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, it should be distributed preferentially to

B. Unpaid portion of value-added tax

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s loan claim is merely a general claim with no preferential payment right as seen earlier, and thus, it cannot be the priority or order compared to the tax claim due to the arrears of the value-added tax notified by the old and the US, regardless of the statutory due date for the pertinent claim provisional seizure decision and the tax claim. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.