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

A. On March 5, 2008, thisA completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 150,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case") with respect to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2008, the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000-00 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,00,000.

B. Around September 3, 2008, 000 cooperatives, a senior mortgagee of the instant real estate, filed an application for the auction of the real estate business (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2008ta25764 regarding the instant real estate.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff reported the amount of total real estate tax of KRW 150,00,000 to the amount of credit, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 42,273,730 (hereinafter “instant comprehensive real estate tax”) in 207, and on April 29, 2009, on the date of distribution of the instant comprehensive real estate tax, the Defendant, on the ground that the statutory due date of the instant comprehensive real estate tax was earlier than March 5, 2008, the date of registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate tax, was earlier than March 5, 2008, 42,273,730, and the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee, was prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary argument

A. On the contrary, the Plaintiff asserts that, around October 17, 2007, this case’s comprehensive real estate holding tax was not reported by this case’s Defendant, and even if this case’s comprehensive real estate holding tax was reported by this case, this case’s comprehensive real estate holding tax amount was determined by this case’s decision of correction, the time when the above decision of correction was made on March 7, 2008, which was notified to this case’s comprehensive real estate holding tax amount, was lower than March 5, 2008, which was the date when the above decision of correction was made on March 7, 2008.

B. In distributing proceeds from the sale of property which is the object of a mortgage in the real estate auction procedure through the execution of mortgage, the friendly relationship between the comprehensive real estate holding tax and the claims on collateral security shall follow the statutory due date of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and the date of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage. According to Articles 35(1) and 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the statutory due date of the comprehensive real estate holding tax shall be the due date when the taxpayer files a report to the Government on the tax base and amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax,

C. On October 17, 2007, this part of the evidence Nos. 2, which seems consistent with this, is stated that thisA did not declare that it did not pay the real estate holding tax in this case because it did not distinguish the payment and the meaning of the report at the time of the record, and does not have any evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, considering the overall purport of the testimony of the witness and the testimony of this AA, this part of the plaintiff's assertion on December 11, 2007, can be acknowledged to the head of the government office of the government office of the Republic of Korea on December 11, 2007, on the premise that thisA did not report the real estate holding tax in this case, on the premise that this part of the plaintiff's assertion was without merit.

D. In addition, even if thisA reported the comprehensive real estate holding tax in this case, it can be acknowledged that this case's comprehensive real estate holding tax in this case's return was made separately from the report of this case's comprehensive real estate holding tax in this case's return, and it was recognized that this case's decision of correction was made separately from the report of this case's comprehensive real estate holding tax in this case's return, since the defendant did not pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax in this case's return and payment, the time when the duty to pay taxes in this case's decision of correction should be the time when the above decision of correction was notified to thisA. According to the evidence No. 2, this part of the plaintiff's assertion that this case's decision of correction was made separately from the report of this case's report of this case's comprehensive real estate holding tax in this case's report of this case's report of this case's report of this case.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in the auction procedure of this case, the amount calculated by multiplying the comprehensive real estate holding tax of this case by the ratio of the value of the real estate in this case to the total value of the property owned by this case in accordance with the provisions of the basic rules of the Framework Act on National Taxes may be distributed to the defendant.

B. On the other hand, the provision of General Rule 35-181 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which the defendant asserts that the real estate holding tax shall apply in this case, applies when calculating the amount of the gross real estate holding tax (so-called "the pertinent tax"), which is subordinate to the right to collateral security, if the statutory due date of the gross real estate holding tax is later than the due date of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage, is more than the due date of the establishment of the mortgage. Thus, the plaintiff's preliminary assertion on the other premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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