2. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the director of the tax office of distribution on October 12, 2012 is revoked. The disposition of refusing the public sale of KRW 22,412,316,030 is revoked.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the head of Seocho-gu on October 12, 2012 against the public auction of KRW 2,188,413,30 is revoked.

3. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out of the total litigation cost is borne by the Defendant, and the part arising from the participation is borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The following facts are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 1 to 3.

[1]

around November 2006, the Seoul High Court's decision that collected approximately KRW 17.923.5 billion from the plaintiff was rendered, and this decision became final and conclusive around that time.

Around December 2007, the Prosecutor General entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the public auction of delinquent property, such as a fine, with the Korea Asset Management Corporation (Korea Asset Management Corporation). In this agreement, the public auction of the property attached by the public prosecutor due to delinquency in payment of additional charges, etc., and the transfer of rights and the distribution of sales proceeds therefrom, stipulated the standards and procedures for performing duties on behalf of the

On June 17, 2008, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office seized 7,767,470 shares issued by the Plaintiff's "bed Korea" (hereinafter "the shares of this case") owned by the Plaintiff on June 17, 2008 for the execution of the above additional collection judgment against the Plaintiff.

The defendant joining the defendant (the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office) decided to execute the above additional collection judgment in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act. On January 15, 2009, the defendant made the public sale of the shares of this case, transferred rights and distributed sales proceeds on behalf of the defendant.

Pursuant to ○○, the Defendant publicly announced the public sale of the instant shares on December 30, 2009, and decided to sell the instant shares to the prospective transferee on August 6, 2012.

By September 13, 2012, 000 U.S. Co., Ltd. paid all the sales price of the shares of this case.

[2]

On September 21, 2012, the director of the tax office, after paying the above sale price, determined the payment period on September 26, 2012 to the Plaintiff, on the ground of the transfer of the instant shares, KRW 21,759,530,130 for the transfer income tax and securities transaction tax for the year 2012.

Then, on September 27, 2012, the director of the tax office requested the defendant to deliver the purchase price of the shares of this case under the following tax claims.

(1) The sum of capital gains tax, securities transaction tax and additional dues for the year 2009, the statutory due date of April 13, 2009 and December 10, 2009, the statutory due date of which is KRW 7,93,422,092

(1) A sum of the capital gains tax, securities transaction tax, 21,759,530,130 won and additional dues for the said 22,412,316,030 won, which was the statutory due date of September 21, 2012 (hereinafter “national tax claim of this case”).

On September 21, 2012, which was after the payment of the above sale price, the head of Seocho-gu also determined the time limit for the payment to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2012 as the local income tax on September 26, 2012.

Then, on October 2, 2012, the head of Seocho-gu requested the defendant to deliver the purchase price of the shares of this case on the basis of the following tax claims.

(1) The sum of the resident tax, aggregate land tax, and additional dues on October 10, 203 and August 10, 2012, the statutory due date of which is 36,184,830 won;

(1) A sum of KRW 2,124,673,110 and additional charges for local income tax belonging to the year 2012, the statutory due date of September 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant local tax claim”) (hereinafter “instant local tax claim”).

[3]

On October 5, 2012, ○ Defendant prepared a distribution statement of the following contents with respect to the sales price of the instant shares and the total amount of deposited interest KRW 92,30,061,130.

In the table (unit: 33,51,540 33,51,540,51,540 10,540 2,00.00% 20,400,738,110 7,993,422,080 26.29% in Seocho-gu Office 2,224,598,130 36,184,830 184, 830 1.63% in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (38 years of age and 38), 681,817, 330, 300, 330.00, 200,000, 19,487, 1407, 405, 2034, 304, 207, 305, 2304, 207, 304, 2537, 2547, 2840

The distribution like ○○○ is not allocated in KRW 22,412,316,030 of the pertinent national tax claims among the tax claims requested by the head of the △△△△, but does not distribute to KRW 2,188,413,300 of the instant local tax claims among the tax claims requested for delivery by the head of the Seocho-gu △△△△, while the amount that is not distributed as such is distributed to △△△△, the amount that is not distributed as such would be allocated as

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The director of the tax office and the head of Seocho-gu lawful request for delivery of the price of the instant shares to the Defendant based on the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim, and the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim have priority over the collection charge claim attaching the instant shares. As such, it is unlawful for the Defendant to distribute the price of the instant shares on October 5, 2012, without allocating the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim. Therefore, the Defendant sought revocation of the disposition rejecting the distribution of the price of the public sale without allocating the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

3. Main safety defenses.

(a) Objections;

(1) The defendant's assertion

The sales price of the instant shares is in accordance with the example of disposition on default of national taxes under the National Tax Collection Act while the prosecutor executes a judgment on the collection of additional taxes against the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff may raise an objection against the distribution of the sales price of the instant shares in accordance with Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation as an appeal against the sales price of the instant shares

(2) Determination

Article 477 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a judgment of collection, etc. shall be executed by an order of a prosecutor. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that a judgment of paragraph (1) may be executed in the same manner as delinquent taxes are collected in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act.

Articles 61 and 80 of the National Tax Collection Act provide that the head of a tax office may have the defendant conduct a public auction on his/her behalf, and in such a case, the defendant may distribute the proceeds from the public auction on his/her behalf. As such, the defendant's vicarious execution of the distribution of the proceeds from the sale on his/her behalf is based on the delegation by the head of a tax office and without the direction and supervision of the head of a tax office (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1757, Feb. 28, 1997; 2001Du6746, Nov. 27, 2001).

On the other hand, Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a person subject to the execution of a judgment may file an objection with the court that pronounced the judgment on the ground that the disposition by the public prosecutor on the execution is unreasonable. Such an objection is to correct the illegal disposition by the public prosecutor on the execution of the judgment, and is an objection against the execution of the judgment itself. Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a judgment such as additional collection shall be executed by the public prosecutor’s order as seen earlier. Such an order of execution, etc.

According to the facts found above, the judgment of additional collection against the plaintiff was finalized, the prosecutor seized the shares of this case owned by the plaintiff for the execution of the judgment, and the above judgment of additional collection was executed in accordance with the example of the disposition of national tax in arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, and the defendant made the public sale of the shares of this case, the transfer of rights and the distribution of sales proceeds therefrom. Accordingly, the defendant sold the shares of this case by public sale and distributed

Thus, the sales price of the shares of this case is the defendant's own authority and is not the execution disposition of the prosecutor. Thus, the distribution of the sales price does not require an objection in accordance with Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but can seek revocation through an appeal litigation. The defendant's above assertion is groundless.

(b) Profits of lawsuits;

(1) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff is merely an indirect interested party based on the result of the distribution, and there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the sales price of the instant shares. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation by the Plaintiff as an appeal litigation against the distribution of sales price of the instant shares is unlawful.

(2) Determination

According to Articles 80 and 81 of the National Tax Collection Act, proceeds from the sale of attached property shall be distributed to national taxes, local taxes, public charges, etc., and if any balance exists, they shall be paid to delinquent taxpayers. According to Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 59 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, additional dues shall be collected if national taxes and local taxes are not paid in full by the due date. According to Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 39 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes is ten or five years, and the period of ex

Meanwhile, according to Article 78 of the Criminal Act, the statute of limitations has been completed when three years have passed without being executed after the judgment became final and conclusive, and additional charges are not collected.

According to the facts found above, among the taxation claims that the defendant requested to deliver when distributing the sale price of the shares of this case, the head of Seocho-gu did not distribute the national tax claims of this case among the taxation claims for which the head of Seocho-gu Office requested to deliver and distribute the shares of this case without allocating the amount of the local tax claims of this case. Such additional collection charges claim did not have been distributed in whole.

Therefore, since all creditors did not receive the entire amount of claim in the sale price of the shares of this case, the plaintiff's seeking revocation of such distribution at the time of sale of the shares of this case does not dispute the order of distribution among creditors in the situation where creditors received the entire amount of claim distribution. In addition, in the case where the sale price of the shares of this case is distributed to the national tax claim of this case and the local tax claim of this case prior to the collection charge claim, the plaintiff is in a legal favorable position as to additional dues or prescription. Therefore, the plaintiff has legal interest in seeking revocation of the sale price of the shares of this case as an appeal litigation. The defendant

4. The defendant's assertion on the merits

According to Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, when the proceeds from the sale of attached property are paid in the procedure for disposition on default and the ownership is transferred to the purchaser, the effect of seizure is extinguished, and the seizure is effective only for the delinquent amount prior to transfer of ownership of attached property. Since participation in the attachment is substituted for the request for delivery, a request for delivery is required to seize the property owned by a delinquent taxpayer. According to Article 77(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, when the head of a tax office receives the proceeds from the sale paid by the purchaser, the delinquent amount shall be considered to have been collected. Therefore, a tax claim established and determined after the payment of the proceeds from the sale of attached property is not subject to allocation from the proceeds from the sale, and a delinquent taxpayer’s right to claim the return of the proceeds from the sale of attached property is subject to separate seizure. However, the transfer income tax, securities transaction tax, local income tax and additional dues established by the sale of the shares owned by the Plaintiff to the procedure for disposition on default

5. Judgment on the merits

(a) Request for delivery;

[1]

Before the amendment of April 4, 2011, the National Tax Collection Act (the "National Tax Collection Act") provided for the seizure, request for delivery, sale of attached property, liquidation, etc. under Chapter III Article 24 through Article 88 of the "Disposition on Default".

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "request for delivery" shall be made, and in cases falling under Article 14 (1) 1 through 6 of the National Tax Collection Act, the head of a tax office shall request the relevant government office, public organization, enforcement court, enforcement court, compulsory officer, compulsory administrator, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidator to pay national taxes, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default.

Article 14 (1) 1 through 6 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when delinquent local taxes are delinquent in the payment of national taxes, when delinquent local taxes or public charges are collected (Article 14 (1) 1 through 6), when delinquent local taxes are collected in the payment of delinquent local taxes or public charges (Article 2), when subject to compulsory execution (Article 3), when subject to disposition of transaction suspension at a clearing house under the △△△ and Check Act (Article 4), when subject to disposition of transaction suspension at a clearing house under the △△ and Check Act (Article 5), when a public auction commences (Article 5), and when a △△△ corporation is dissolved

[2]

A request for delivery under the National Tax Collection Act is a claim for the distribution of delinquent taxes by joining the procedure for compulsory refund, which is already in progress by the tax authority, and is in the same nature as a demand for distribution in compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da44834 delivered on April 28, 1992).

On the other hand, a demand for distribution in compulsory execution is an act under the Civil Execution Act, which participates in the execution procedure commenced by another creditor and seeks to be repaid from the proceeds of sale of the same property, and is an expression of intent to receive repayment from

Therefore, if a taxpayer fails to fulfill his/her tax obligation, a claim for delivery is filed for a compulsory refund procedure that is in progress without a direct need to proceed with the procedure of the disposition for arrears leading to seizure, sale, and liquidation, and the agency responsible for the procedure receives the amount of money equivalent to the amount of the amount of the amount of the amount of the amount of the amount of the amount of the amount of the money in arrears. Thus, if the object of the compulsory refund procedure is converted into money without a direct participation in the proceeding of the procedure, it is demanded that the amount of the money realized.

(b) Payment of proceeds;

[1]

The National Tax Collection Act provides for seizure, request for delivery, sale of seized property, liquidation, etc. in Articles 24 through 88 of the "Disposition on Default in Chapter III". Such disposition on default is a kind of compulsory refund procedure.

In the procedure of disposition on default, attachment is effective to prohibit the disposal of the object, and the sale is converted into money for the public sale, and the sale proceeds converted into money is distributed to the claim and the balance is paid to the delinquent taxpayer.

Public sale under the National Tax Collection Act has the nature of a judicial sales contract between a delinquent taxpayer and a purchaser on behalf of the agency for disposition on default (see Constitutional Court Order 2007HunGa8, April 30, 2009).

On the other hand, Article 77 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the purchaser shall acquire the selling property at the time of paying the purchase price. In addition, Article 83 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the disposition on default shall be terminated by preparing a distribution statement.

[2]

Therefore, if the property owned by the delinquent is seized in the procedure for disposition on default and the buyer pays the sale price, the sale price is the money realized from the property owned by the delinquent and it is in a situation where the disposal of the delinquent is still prohibited to satisfy the claim before the distribution statement is prepared.

However, a claim for the payment of money can be collected from the whole property of a delinquent taxpayer.

On the other hand, a request for delivery is a claim for distribution of delinquent taxes by joining the procedure of compulsory refund, which is already in progress by the tax office, and the relevant tax is in arrears at the time of the request for delivery (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da44834 delivered on April 28, 1992).

Therefore, in cases where the ownership of the attached property owned by the delinquent taxpayer is transferred to the purchaser of the public auction due to the attachment of the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer in the procedure for disposition on default, the sale price is the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer who is able to collect tax claims from the delinquent taxpayer, and the disposition of the delinquent taxpayer is still prohibited to satisfy the tax claims. Therefore, it is legally impossible to request the delivery of the proceeds from the delinquent tax claims based on the tax claims

[3]

According to the facts found earlier, the pertinent shares owned by the Plaintiff were sold to friendly mountain by public sale, and the sales price of the instant shares paid by friendly mountain by September 13, 2012, the head of the tax office and the head of Seocho-gu demanded issuance of the pertinent national tax bond and the instant local tax bond on September 27, 2012, and October 2, 2012. National tax bond and the instant local tax bond are capital gains tax, securities transaction tax, local income tax, and additional charges created by transfer of the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff to friendly mountain by sale at a public sale, and the deadline for payment is September 26, 2012, prior to the request for delivery.

Therefore, solely on the fact that the ownership of the shares of this case was transferred to the friendly acquisition by paying the sale price by the friendly acquisition by transfer, the distribution upon the request for delivery by the director of the distribution office and the head of Seocho-gu cannot be legally impossible.

(c) Acquisition of ownership by a third party;

[1]

Since national taxes cannot be collected from property that is not owned by a taxpayer, if a third party acquires ownership before the property is seized by a disposition on default, in principle, the right to collect national taxes shall not apply to such property (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da24396 delivered on August 21, 1998).

On the other hand, Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the attachment shall also have its effect on the delinquent amount of national taxes of which the statutory due date under Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has arrived before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred.

[2]

The purport of Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act is that if a seizure is registered once, the seizure is effective as a matter of course against the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration of the seizure for the same person without the need to obtain a new registration of the seizure. The term “amount in arrears” in this context refers to the national tax, additional dues, etc. that has not been paid by the payment deadline after the establishment and determination of the tax liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50625, Jul. 26, 2012).

If property owned by a delinquent taxpayer is seized in the procedure of disposition on default, such seizure takes effect relatively to prohibit the disposal of the property, and thus, the delinquent taxpayer may transfer the attached property to a third party, while the public sale of the attached property in the procedure of disposition on default does not interfere with the effect of prohibition on disposal of the attached property. In such a case, the issue is whether to collect tax claims accrued until any time from the proceeds of sale of the attached property and pay the balance to a third party

Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act limits the scope of tax claims that can be collected from the proceeds from the sale of the attached property when the ownership of the attached property is transferred to a third party after the attached property owned by the delinquent taxpayer was seized during the disposition procedure for arrears, to the tax claims in arrears due to the establishment of tax liability before the ownership of the attached property is transferred to a third party and the due date for payment has

On the other hand, the attachment of the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer in the disposition procedure for arrears and the transfer of the ownership of the attached property to the purchaser of the public sale is the result of the public sale itself. Thus, the purchaser of such public sale does not fall under the "third party" under Article 47 (2) of

Therefore, Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act does not apply where the ownership of the attached property is transferred to the purchaser of the public auction due to the attachment of the property owned by the delinquent in the disposition for arrears and the public auction.

[3]

According to the facts found above, the shares of this case owned by the plaintiff were seized and sold to the friendly delivery, and the director of the tax office and the head of Seocho-gu demanded the delivery of the sales price of the shares of this case paid by the friendly delivery, the purchaser of the public auction.

Therefore, the distribution based on Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act cannot be legally impossible due to the distribution director and the request for delivery by the head of Seocho-gu.

(d) Participation in attachment;

[1]

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act provides for "request for delivery", and Article 57 of the National Tax Collection Act provides for "Participation in Attachment". Article 57 (1) provides that the head of a tax office may participate in the attachment by serving a notice of participation in attachment to the agency which already attached the property in lieu of the request for delivery if the property to be attached is already attached by another agency.

Article 58 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the effect, etc. of participation in the attachment" shall be defined as "the effect, etc. of participation in the attachment". Article 58 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that if the agency having already attached property releases the attachment of the property after participation in the attachment under Article 57, the participation in the attachment shall retroactively take effect.

[2]

The participation in the attachment under the National Tax Collection Act is a participation in the attachment procedure in lieu of the request for delivery when the attachment procedure has already commenced by another agency, and it is a supplement to the short point that makes it impossible to secure the collection right because the attachment is cancelled due to the nature of the attachment in the case of the request for delivery and the request for delivery is unreasonable.

On the other hand, a request for delivery is a claim for distribution of delinquent taxes by joining the compulsory refund procedure which is already in progress by the competent tax office, and the relevant tax is required to be delinquent at the time of the request for delivery. Moreover, the proceeds from sale of attached property are the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer who is able to collect a tax claim from the delinquent taxpayer and still is in a state in which the disposition of the delinquent

Thus, the participation in the attachment is substituted for the request for delivery, and it is not legally impossible to request the delivery of the proceeds from sale realized in money, just because the property owned by the defaulted taxpayer cannot be seized more because it is converted into money due to the public sale in the process of delinquency disposition.

[3]

According to the facts found above, the shares of this case owned by the plaintiff were sold to friendly delivery, and the director of the tax office and the head of Seocho-gu demanded the delivery of the sales price of the shares of this case paid by friendly delivery.

Therefore, the distribution by the director of the distribution tax office and the head of Seocho-gu can not be legally impossible on the basis of seizure or default, which is the requirement of attachment and request for delivery.

(e) Collection of arrears;

[1]

Article 77 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the effect of the payment of purchase price" shall be stipulated as "the effect of the payment of purchase price". Article 77 (1) provides that the purchaser shall acquire the sale property at the time of the payment of the purchase price. Article 77 (2) provides that the head of a tax office shall be deemed to collect the delinquent amount from the delinquent taxpayer within the extent of the receipt of

On the other hand, Article 81(4) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of claims, the order and amount to be distributed pursuant to the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes shall be set and distributed. In addition, Article 83(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when distribution is made, the distribution statement shall be prepared, and Article 83(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the disposition on default shall be terminated by preparing

A request for delivery is a request for distribution of delinquent taxes by joining the compulsory refund procedure which is already in progress by the competent tax office, and it is required that the relevant tax is in arrears at the time of the request for delivery.

[2]

According to Article 77(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, if the purchaser pays the purchase price and receives it from the head of a tax office, the delinquent amount shall be deemed to have been collected from the delinquent taxpayer within the scope of the receipt. As such, the delinquent amount deemed collected is the delinquent amount prior to the payment of the purchase price, not the delinquent amount

Therefore, in cases where the purchaser has paid the proceeds from the public sale of the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer in the procedure for disposition on default, the tax claims in arrears after the payment of the proceeds therefrom are deemed to have been collected pursuant to Article 77(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, cannot be deemed to have failed to meet the requirements for a claim for delivery based on such tax claims. Therefore, it is legally impossible to claim for delivery of the proceeds from the tax claims in arrears after the payment of the proceeds therefrom.

[3]

According to the facts found earlier, the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff were sold to friendly mountain by public sale, and the sales price of the instant shares paid by friendly mountain by September 13, 2012 was claimed by the head of the tax office and the head of Seocho-gu to deliver the instant national tax bonds and the instant local tax bonds on September 27, 2012 and October 2, 2012. National tax bond and the instant local tax bond are capital gains tax, securities transaction tax, local income tax and additional dues established by transfer of the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff to friendly mountain by sale at a public sale, and the payment period is September 26, 2012, after the payment of the sales price of friendly mountain.

Therefore, the distribution based on Article 77 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act cannot be legally impossible due to the distribution director and the request for delivery by the head of Seocho-gu.

(f) Demand for distribution;

[1]

Article 80 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that “the scope of distribution of money.” Article 80(1) provides that the head of a tax office shall distribute the following money pursuant to the provisions of Article 81. The head of a tax office prescribed the following subparagraphs: the money attached to the △△△ (No. 1) and the money received as the delinquent taxpayer or the third debtor due to the seizure of the △△△ claim (No. 2), the sales price of the △△ property and the deposit interest thereof (No. 3), and the money received upon a request for delivery of the △△△△ (No. 4).

Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the money referred to in Article 81(1)2 and 3 shall be allocated to the following national taxes, additional dues, expenses for disposition on default, and other claims. Each of these subparagraphs provides that national taxes, additional dues, expenses for disposition on default, local taxes, or public charges related to the seizure of △△△△△△△, national taxes, additional dues, expenses for disposition on default, local taxes, or claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage related to the attached property of △△△△△ (Article 81(4). Article 81(4) provides that when the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of national taxes, additional dues, expenses for disposition on default, and other claims under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, the head of a tax office shall allocate them according to the order of priority and amount to be apportioned:

On the other hand, Article 83 of the National Tax Collection Act provides for "preparation of a distribution statement". The main sentence of Article 83(1) provides that when distribution of money is made pursuant to Article 80, the head of a tax office shall prepare a distribution statement and deliver it to the delinquent taxpayer. In this case, the latter part of Article 83(1) provides that the person subject to distribution should make a request for distribution before the head of a tax office prepares a distribution statement.

[2]

The procedure for disposition on default and civil execution procedure are separate procedures, and there is no provision in the law regulating the relationship between the procedure and the procedure, so one party’s procedure cannot interfere with the other party’s procedure, while each creditor in both procedures may not participate in the other procedure in a way different from each other’s procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686, May 14, 199).

Therefore, the chief of a tax office's request for delivery to an auction court is the same in nature as the demand for distribution in the auction procedure. Thus, the request for delivery can be made only by the auction date, like the demand for distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da19276 delivered on March 22, 194).

On the other hand, unlike the Civil Execution Act, the National Tax Collection Act did not provide for the right to demand a distribution, the notification procedures for the period for demanding a distribution, the practical period for supplementing the amount of claims due to the failure to submit a statement of claims, the scope of creditors entitled to receive a distribution, the procedure

The above difference is derived from the point that the procedure for disposition on default is a procedure for prompt satisfaction of tax claims by administrative agencies, while the procedure for disposition on default is due to the judicial resolution by the repayment of general claims concurrent in the compulsory execution procedure. Therefore, the provisions concerning the period for supplementing the amount of claims due to the failure to submit a statement of claims in the compulsory execution procedure, the procedure for distribution of the disposition on default cannot be applied mutatis mutandis. Therefore, the head of a tax office, as the head of a tax office, shall ex officio determine the amount to be distributed to the creditors provided in Article 81(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and prepare a distribution statement (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10578 delivered on December 11,

In addition, when distributing the proceeds from sale after selling the attached property through the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the priority order between national taxes and other claims shall be finalized when a distribution statement under the National Tax Collection Act is prepared to distribute the proceeds from sale of the attached property (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6052 delivered on April 23, 1996).

[3]

Article 81 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that proceeds from the sale of attached property and the deposit interest thereof shall be allocated to claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage related to attached property.

The above provision imposes an obligation under public law to allocate the proceeds from the sale of attached property to the secured party under the National Tax Collection Act regardless of whether it was before or after the seizure, to protect the right to preferential payment related to the attached property in the procedure of disposition on default, and it is merely an example of claims that can be distributed from the proceeds from the sale of attached property, and it is not a limited list. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the proceeds from sale under disposition on default includes not only the security right under Article 81 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act, but also the claims in preference or order above the security right under the provisions of the law or the interpretation of the law (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du7971 delivered on March 26, 2002).

The latter part of Article 83(1) of the National Tax Collection Act stipulates that a person subject to distribution should make a request for distribution before the head of a tax office prepares a distribution statement.

However, in light of the fact that the National Tax Collection Act does not have any provision concerning the status of a person who violates the latter part of paragraph (1) above, while the purpose of the compulsory execution procedure under the Civil Execution Act is to resolve judicially through satisfaction of claims by administrative agencies, the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act is to ensure prompt satisfaction of claims by administrative agencies. Unlike the Civil Execution Act, the National Tax Collection Act does not provide for the right to demand distribution, the procedure for notifying the period for demanding distribution, the procedure for supplementing the amount of claims due to failure to submit a statement of claims, the scope of creditors entitled to receive dividends, the procedure for objection to distribution, etc. In light of the fact that the latter part of paragraph (1) above does not provide for the right to demand distribution, and it is nothing more than a provision that excludes a person subject to distribution who did not request the distribution from the time of preparing a statement of distribution. Thus, if the wage claim preceding the national tax or additional dues is included in the object of distribution of seized property under the National Tax Collection Act, the agency in charge of delinquent payment procedure shall prepare a distribution statement ex officio (see Supreme Court Decision 2075Da.

[4]

According to the above, the procedure for disposition on default is a procedure for the prompt satisfaction of the tax claims by the △△ administrative agency. Unlike the procedure for compulsory execution, the relevant provisions in the procedure for compulsory execution shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the person having the right to demand a distribution or the period for the demand for a distribution, and the request for distribution shall not be made before the △△△ distribution is made. As such, the procedure for disposition on default is not excluded from the distribution even if the request for such distribution is not made, and the priority among the claims is confirmed only when the distribution statement is made at the time of the preparation of the distribution statement, and it is necessary to prepare

Therefore, even if the ownership of the attached property is transferred to the purchaser due to the attachment of the property owned by the delinquent taxpayer in the disposition procedure for arrears and the sale price is paid by the purchaser, it is allowed under the National Tax Collection Act to request the delivery of the sale price based on the tax claim in arrears established and determined before the distribution statement is prepared.

[5]

According to the facts found above, the judgment of additional collection against the plaintiff was executed in accordance with the example of disposition of national tax in arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, and the shares of this case owned by the plaintiff were sold in friendly mountain as a result of public sale, and the sales price of the shares of this case paid by friendly mountain by September 13, 2012 by the head of the tax office and the head of Seocho-gu filed a claim for issuance of the pertinent national tax claim and local tax claim of this case on September 27, 2012 and October 2, 2012. National tax claim of this case and local tax claim of this case are capital gains tax, securities transaction tax, local income tax and additional dues established by transfer of the shares of this case owned by the plaintiff to friendly mountain by the public sale at a public sale, and its payment deadline is September 26, 2012, which is prior to the request for delivery.

Therefore, the request of the director of the tax office for distribution and the head of Seocho-gu is permissible under the National Tax Collection Act, so it is possible to distribute it accordingly.

G. Disposition of this case

[1]

According to the above, the head of the distribution tax office and the head of Seocho-gu are permitted under the National Tax Collection Act to request a delivery of the price of the instant shares based on the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim, so it is possible to distribute it pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act. Since the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim have priority over the collection charge claim attached to the instant shares, the sales price of the instant shares shall be distributed to the instant national tax claim and the instant local tax claim. Accordingly, the instant disposition that was not distributed as above

[2]

On the other hand, with the amendment of the National Tax Collection Act on April 4, 201, Article 67(2)7 and (5) of the National Tax Collection Act provide that when public auction is publicly announced, "the closing date of the request for distribution" should be determined by considering the period necessary for the procedure and the first bidding date.

In addition, Article 68-2(1) of the above amended Act provides that a person who has not registered or recorded before the registration or enrollment of the notice of public auction shall demand the distribution of the following claims until the end of the period of request for distribution. The following claims include the amount of delinquent taxes related to the attached property, delinquent taxes, local taxes, or public charges related to the request for delivery.

In addition, Article 81 (1) of the above amended Act provides that in the case of claims to be requested to distribute until the end of the request for distribution, only the claims requested to distribute shall be allocated.

The above amendment aims to prevent excessive disposition on default by determining the amount of the claim to be collected from the proceeds of sale prior to sale, while to prevent delay and confusion in distribution procedures due to the increase of the amount of the claim, and to prevent the buyer from becoming unstable.

However, Articles 1 and 5 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provide that the above amended Act shall enter into force on April 4, 201, and Article 67, which provides that Article 68-2 and Article 81, which stipulates that the first public notification of the public notification of the public notification of the public notification of the distribution of △△△ shall apply from January 1, 201 to the first time after the enforcement of the above amended Act.

Thus, the above revised law is established and finalized before the preparation of a distribution statement under the National Tax Collection Act prior to the amendment, and on the premise that the request for the delivery of the proceeds from the delinquent tax claims is allowed, the above revised law does not retroactively enforce the revised law in consideration of legal stability.

Therefore, with respect to the disposition of this case, which was prepared by the distribution statement on October 5, 2012 after the Defendant publicly announced the public sale of the shares on December 30, 2009 and rendered the sale decision on August 6, 2012, the provisions of the above amended Act cannot be applied. Thus, the disposition of this case is not changed as seen earlier.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Judicial Enforcement Decree of Judges (Presiding Judge)