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

A. On December 7, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the creation of a mortgage over KRW 30,000,000 with respect to Jeju-do, ○○○○○-dong, 792-○○-dong, 792-○○ Housing 401 (limited to the instant building) on two parcels; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 12,00,000 to the largest ○-do, the maximum amount of debt amount of KRW 30,000.

B. However, with respect to the building of this case, the procedure for compulsory sale by official auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was conducted at Jeju District Court No. 2008tata District Court No. 1431, and the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution based on the said secured claim.

C. However, Park Jong-chul did not pay the national taxes indicated in the attached Table 1 and the local taxes indicated in the attached Table 2 on the attached Table 2. On September 26, 2008, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 46,728,536 to the Defendant Republic of Korea who requested the delivery of the above national taxes on a preferential basis than the Plaintiff’s secured claims, and to the Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, who requested the delivery of the above local taxes, the amount of KRW 46,69,186 to whom the Defendant requested the delivery of the above local taxes was distributed (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant distribution schedule should be revised on the grounds that (1) the statute of limitation expired for the Defendants’ claim, and (2) Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s local tax cannot be preferred to the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security because it is not the pertinent tax

B. Determination on the extinction of the statute of limitations

(1) General theory

The extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes or local taxes is interrupted for five years, or for the period during which the attachment of a delinquent taxpayer’s property continues (see Article 28(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30-6(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act). Article 47(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the attachment of real estate, etc. under Article 45 of the same Act shall also have effect on any delinquent amount of national taxes, the statutory due date of which comes before the transfer of the ownership of the relevant attached property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11848, Dec. 14, 2007).

(2) As to Defendant Korea’s taxation claims

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap 1, 2, Eul 3-1, and Eul 3-2, the defendant Republic of Korea seized the Jeju 02Ga5262 on October 15, 1997 based on the national tax credit listed in the attached Table 1 or 4, and the seizure is recognized as valid until now.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the interruption of prescription against all the national tax claims stated in the attached Table 1 list has been effective, and the plaintiff's assertion against the Republic of Korea is without merit.

(3) As to the taxation claims of Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence No. 1, defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province attached No. 1 or No. 5 on October 26, 2001, based on the local tax claim indicated in attached Table 2 No. 1 or No. 5, seized the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province's 2 or No. 2425, and the above seizure was revoked on July 13, 2006.

Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the interruption of prescription became effective until the seizure of all the local tax claims indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto was cancelled, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is without merit, since five years have not elapsed thereafter.

C. Determination as to whether local taxes are subject to preferential repayment

In the case of local taxes, if the security right is established after the statutory deadline for the local taxes even if the local taxes are not the corresponding tax, the local taxes should take precedence over the secured goods (see Article 31 (1) and (2) 3 of the Local Tax Act).

As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 2 and No. 3, Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s statutory deadline for the local tax is prior to the date of establishing the Plaintiff’s mortgage, the local tax of Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.