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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 56,967,121 won with 5% interest per annum from July 25, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

A. A limited liability company specialized in securitization 0000 filed a lawsuit against the non-party B with the Daegu District Court 2003Kadan0000 against the non-party B, and the plaintiff participated in the lawsuit above. The plaintiff was sentenced to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, and " SongB paid KRW 144,857,372 to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor." The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 11, 2004.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate on September 14, 2004 with the Daegu District Court 2004Kadan000, 000, 00 Gyeongbuk-do 00, 000, 136-1, 636-2, 00 Gyeongbuk-gun 00, 100, 14-4, and 84-7, respectively.

C. On March 18, 1996, the Ministry of Tax Administration, under the defendant, completed the registration of seizure on March 18, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") with respect to each real estate of the above 00 Ri 636-1, 636-2, and 636-2, and completed the registration of seizure on September 3, 1996 on September 9, 1996.

D. On November 12, 2012, prior to the date of demand for distribution (i.e., January 15, 2013), an auction was conducted at the Daegu District Court 00,000 another 3126, according to the application for voluntary auction by the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) for the real estate set forth in the above 00 Ri-4 and 84-7. On November 12, 2012, a total of 440,713,450 won of national taxes collected in arrears at the above court was submitted.

E. During the said voluntary auction procedure, a distribution schedule was prepared in order of 125,713,687 won to be distributed in actual dividends on May 29, 2013, and the distribution schedule was formulated in order of 125,713,687 won to be distributed in order of 00,83,601,030 won, and 2nd priority to DoD, which is the right to collateral security, to pay the remainder of 42,112,657 won. The said distribution schedule became final and conclusive and was paid in 00 won.

F. Upon the Defendant’s application for compulsory auction on December 28, 2012, the procedure for compulsory auction was carried out under the Daegu District Court’s Young-gu District Court’s Young-gu Branch Decision 2012Mo3713 as to each real estate on December 28, 2012 (hereinafter “instant auction”).

G. At the instant auction procedure, the final date for the demand for distribution was set on March 11, 2013. On April 29, 2013, the date for the demand for distribution was set at 00 years of age, the said court submitted a written request for delivery of KRW 440,713,450, including KRW 83,601,030, which was received as dividends in the previous auction procedure, to the said court. On May 1, 2013, the same written request for delivery was submitted, and on July 1, 2013, the written request for delivery was submitted, 357,112,420, which was obtained by subtracting KRW 83,601,030, which was distributed in the previous auction procedure.

H. At the instant auction procedure, on July 24, 2013, a distribution schedule was formulated that distributes the total amount of KRW 56,967,121 to be actually distributed to the tax secretary book of 00 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

I. The instant distribution schedule became final and conclusive as is, because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the instant distribution schedule and did not file a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, and the Defendant was paid KRW 56,967,121 of the said dividend amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 2, 3-4 to 6 and 5-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. In the instant auction procedure, the assertion did not submit a written request for delivery by March 11, 2013, which is the date of the completion date to demand a distribution, and thereafter, on March 31, 1996, the highest date between the time limit for payment of national taxes stated in the written request for delivery submitted by a 00-year-old book, and on March 18, 1996, national taxes for each of the above 000-636-1, and 636-2 against which the 00-year-old book requested a delivery at the instant auction procedure at the time of registering the seizure of real estate was not generated, and thus, in the instant auction procedure, the said 00-year-free book cannot be distributed to the Plaintiff. However, the distribution schedule of this case distributed as above in that 00-year-free book constitutes unlawful, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to return KRW 56,967,121 to the Plaintiff.

B. A creditor who has an executory exemplification of judgment, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a ruling on commencement of auction, or a creditor who has the right to preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, the Commercial Act, or other Acts, may receive a distribution only within the period of demand for distribution. In the event that a legitimate demand for distribution has not been made, even a creditor who has the right to preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, may not receive a distribution from the proceeds of sale, and even if a creditor has a right to demand a distribution until the period of demand for distribution, where a part of the claim is demanded, it may not be added or expanded after the period of demand for distribution. This doctrine also applies to cases where a creditor who has not made a demand for additional distribution under a tax claim requests for the delivery of interest, etc. This doctrine also applies to cases where the head of a tax office requests the delivery of a tax claim based on a tax claim. The purport of Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that once the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred, the amount of delinquent taxes arising from the seizure claim becomes effective only after the issuance of a new tax claim for arrears after the date.

According to the above facts and the evidence as to this case, SongB's delinquent tax amount of 83,601,030 won in total as of the time of the registration of the seizure of this case. The above Daegu District Court 00,000 another 3126 at the voluntary auction procedure around May 29, 2013, the above 83,601,03 won in total was paid to the above delinquent tax amount of 80,000 won in total, and the above 00,000 won in the auction procedure of this case filed a claim for delivery after the completion of the period of demand for distribution. Accordingly, since the above 00,00, the delinquent tax amount of this case occurred at the time of the registration of the seizure of this case did not request delivery of the remaining delinquent tax amount of 5,00,000 won in total, it cannot be viewed that the above 00,967,121 won in the auction procedure of this case was legitimate because the plaintiff did not dispute the above 000,00,000, which was the above tax claim for distribution of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.