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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 180,842,160 won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the day of sentencing of this case to the day of full payment.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

(a) Won on the land owned by KangO, and acquisition of the defendant's rights;

1) On April 30, 2004, the non-party 2 acquired a part of the non-party 2's OOOO-dong 16-*(hereinafter referred to as "non-party 2's OOO-dong 16-* on January 31, 201) as the sale and purchase of the same part that was previously known on January 31, 201 as the result of the merger, 16-* from 16-* to 16-*; hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"). From April 30, 204 to September 19, 2006, the non-party 2's non-party 2's creditor OOOOO-OO-O (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 2's OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O's total real estate tax was created, which is a total of 15 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "the attachment").

2) On February 1, 2011, the registration of ownership of the instant land was successively transferred to Nonparty OOOOO International, Inc. on May 26, 201, respectively.

3) The Plaintiff imposed, respectively, comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2006 on the instant land, and comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2007 and 2009 on March 2, 2011.

4) On September 26, 2013, Nonparty 1 was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139, and the Defendant was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy.

(b) Progress and distribute the auction procedure;

1) The instant land was sold on July 30, 2015, after the commencement of voluntary auction on July 30, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Ma26730, Jul. 30, 2013, which was notified of the completion date for demand for distribution on October 21, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”).

2) On August 25, 2015, the executing court of the instant auction procedure distributed to the Defendant the full amount of KRW 7,020,120,158 of the actual amount to be distributed out of the proceeds from the sale of the instant land on August 25, 2015.

3) Meanwhile, on August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a written request for issuance (Evidence A No. 4) with respect to the instant auction procedure. The amount claimed during the period is 2,348,027,16 won in total, including the amount in arrears of each comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2006, 2007, and 180,842,160 won in total, and the amount in arrears of each comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2,348,027,160 (i.e., the above KRW 180,842,160 + the amount in arrears of capital gains tax + KRW 2,167,185,000) and the amount in arrears

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Gap evidence No. 5-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the event that the attachment is registered as a procedure for collecting delinquent taxes on the auction real estate, the effect of the attachment of this case shall be deemed to have been the same, and the effect of the attachment of this case shall also be the delinquent amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2006, 2007, and 2009 determined thereafter, and the total amount of 180,842,160 won of the above comprehensive real estate holding tax for the property itself, which is the national tax imposed on the property itself, shall be collected in preference to the secured amount of the above secured amount of the right to collateral regardless of the time when the right to collateral security was established by the non-party savingsO. Therefore, the above 180,842,160 won out of the defendant's dividends should have been distributed to the plaintiff, which is unjust enrichment and the defendant shall return the above

B. Relevant legal principles

1) A creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the auction, a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other Acts, may receive a distribution only when he/she demanded a distribution by the deadline for claiming a distribution. In cases where a legitimate demand for distribution has not been made, even if he/she is a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, he/she may not receive a distribution from the proceeds of sale thereof (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da46938, Mar. 23, 199; 9Da11526, Mar. 23, 2001). Such legal doctrine equally applies to cases where a request for a delivery based on a tax claim. Thus, even if the relevant tax claim takes precedence over the relevant tax claim regardless of the statutory deadline under Article 31(1) and (2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2014).

2) Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the effect of the seizure of real estate, etc. conducted by the head of a tax office shall also extend to the amount of delinquent taxes for the national taxes of which the statutory due date has arrived at before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The purport of the above provision is to register the seizure once again, and if the seizure is completed, it is merely effective as a matter of course without the need to obtain a new registration on the amount of delinquent taxes for the same person accrued thereafter, and it does not mean that a special priority is recognized on the amount of national tax claims arising after the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6115, Nov. 12, 2004). It does not purport to recognize the validity of the request for delivery of the whole amount of delinquent taxes accrued until the date of distribution after the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court

3) If a creditor who can demand a distribution, but participate in the distribution procedure, makes a demand for distribution by adding or expanding the amount of a claim which has not been made by the successful bid date to the amount of a claim which has not been made by the auction date, but such part was excluded from the distribution, and the distribution has been made in accordance with the final distribution schedule, the distribution schedule was prepared and confirmed to exclude that part from the distribution, and the distribution has been made in accordance with such final distribution schedule, the monetary amount equivalent to the amount which could have been received by him/her in the case where he/she makes a lawful demand for distribution shall not be deemed to have no legal grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da

C. Determination

1) Effect of the instant seizure

In light of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the attachment of this case shall not be subject to the statutory due date limit, the attachment of this case shall also extend to the delinquent amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2006, 2007, and 2009.

2) Whether the plaintiff's request for delivery was made

Even if the delinquent amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax accrued in 2006, 207, and 2009 has the effect of the seizure of this case, according to the facts and legal principles as seen earlier, it is all the national tax claims which became due to the statutory due date after the seizure of this case, and they are not included in the taxes intended to be collected as a result of the disposition on default at the time of the registration of the seizure of this case, and thus, the validity of the request for delivery is not recognized by the above seizure (the validity of the request for delivery is recognized by the seizure of this case shall be the comprehensive real estate holding tax for November 201, which is not included in the scope of unjust enrichment sought by the plaintiff). Therefore, unless the plaintiff did not request the delivery by the expiration date of the

In light of the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of the delinquent amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2006, 2007, and 2009, in the auction procedure of this case, only on the ground that Gap evidence No. 4 (a written request for delivery, which was the date of preparation, October 21, 2013 and August 18, 2015, which was the date of demand for distribution) that is difficult for the plaintiff to be deemed to have submitted to the court of execution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3) Whether unjust enrichment is established

In the auction procedure of this case, unless the plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of delinquent claims of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2006, 2007, and 2009, the court of execution cannot distribute the amount corresponding thereto to the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that there is no legal ground on the ground that the amount equivalent to the amount which the plaintiff could have received was distributed to the defendant, a subordinate creditor, in the case where the plaintiff made a lawful request for delivery on the wind that the distribution schedule was prepared and confirmed without the plaintiff's request for delivery and the distribution was made in accordance with the established distribution schedule. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise

3. Conclusion

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