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

Cheong-gu Office

○○ District Court ○○○○ Branch 2016.00 Other distribution procedures cases, the said court deleted KRW 00,000,000 of the dividends against the Defendant from among the distribution schedule prepared on August 31, 2016, and the dividends against the Plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 00,000,000.

A. In the case of divorce, etc. brought by the Plaintiff against ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○00, which was a legal spouse, the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and NewlyB as of August 28, 2013 (the main contents are extracted).

① The Plaintiff and newB shall be divorced.

② A newB shall be paid KRW 00,000,000 to the Plaintiff as division of property, on condition that it shall be paid KRW 00,000,000 by December 31, 2013; KRW 00,000,000 by April 30, 2014; KRW 00,000,000 by August 31, 2014; and KRW 00,000,000 by December 31, 2014. A newB shall lose the benefit of the period and pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum to the unpaid amount once.

③ The Plaintiff, based on the division of property, shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to the Plaintiff’s 1/2 shares among five real estate, such as 1/2 shares of 5 real estate, such as the Dog-ri, Dog-ri, 0785 square meters, Dog-dong 000 square meters, Dog-dong 000 square meters, Dog-dong 3000 square meters, Dog-dong 333 square meters, Dog-dong Dog-dong, Dog-dong, Dog-dong, Dog-dong, Dog-dong, Dog-dong, Dog-dong, and Dog-dong, Dog-dong, and Dog-dong, Dog-dong,

B. NewB did not pay KRW 00,000,000 as of August 31, 2014 by the head of ○○○○ Tax Office under the Defendant’s control of the Defendant, and the amount of national taxes in arrears is KRW 00,000,000 as of May 26, 2016.

C. The head of ○○○ Tax Office seized on May 26, 2016 the remainder of the land purchase price that a newB had against KimCC in order to collect the amount of national taxes from the newB. The KimCC deposited KRW 000,000,000 as the ○○ District Court 2016-200.

D. On August 31, 2016, ○○ District Court ○○○ Branch 2016 another distribution procedure (hereinafter “○○○”) distributed KRW 00,000,000 to the Defendant (a seizure authority) who is a seizure authority, the amount to be actually distributed after adding interest to the deposited money by KimCC and deducting the enforcement cost.

E. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff has a property division claim against ○○ District Court ○○○○○○ Branch 2012D 000 case. The above conciliation is impossible to divide the real estate owned by the Plaintiff and B into the form of investment, and the Plaintiff’s share was transferred to B and the newB was made under the condition that she would pay her cash after selling real estate, and the amount of property division was made after adding up part of the pension and real estate of B, which is the beneficiary of pension, to the Plaintiff. Therefore, since the money that the Plaintiff is obligated to receive from NewlyB should be paid first to the Defendant’s national tax claim against her newB, it is unfair to divide ○○ District Court ○○○○○○ Branch 2016ta 000 case, which is distributed first to the Defendant, and the amount distributed to the Defendant should be distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "national taxes, additional dues, or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public charges or claims, and it shall not apply to any public charges or other claims falling under any of the following subparagraphs." Thus, national taxes may be collected in preference to general claims, unless they are claims falling under the above proviso:

In the instant case, although the Plaintiff’s claim against newB was arising under the protocol of mediation granting executory power to the court, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim against the newB has the nature of a claim which takes precedence over the national tax due to such reasons, and even based on the circumstance in which the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property is generated, it cannot be viewed differently, and there is no other circumstance in which the Plaintiff’s claim is paid prior to the Defendant’s national tax claim.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.