beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013. 09. 04. 선고 2012가합18130 판결

배당이의 사건에서 부과처분이 잘못되었음을 다투는 경우, 부과처분의 하자가 중대 명백하여 무효라는 사실은 주장하는 자가 입증하여야 함.[국승]

Title

In a case of demurrer against distribution, the claimant should prove that the defect in the disposition of imposition is so obvious that the defect in the disposition of imposition is invalid.

Summary

In a case of disputing the wrong disposition of imposition in a case of demurrer against distribution, it shall be proved that there is a defect in the imposition of the value-added tax and the global income tax against the plaintiff in order to be illegal, and that there is no tax claim against the plaintiff by the defendant 000, such as the above disposition becomes null and void or revoked by the administrative litigation, etc. as it is serious and clear.

Cases

2012 Gohap 18130 Demurrer against distribution

Plaintiff

KimA

Defendant

1. BB Capital Co. 2. 000

4. 000

Conclusion of Pleadings

August 21, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

September 4, 2013

Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against defendant BB Capital Corporation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the annual Gu shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Pursuant to the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 4, 2012 with respect to the compulsory auction of real estate at Busan District Court Decision 201TTT24172, the dividend amount to the defendant BB Capital Co., Ltd., the dividend amount OOOOO officers for the defendant Republic of Korea, the dividend amount to the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation, the dividend amount to the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation, and the dividend amount to the defendant Gu shall be deleted, respectively, and the dividend amount of OOO directors shall be corrected by correcting the distribution schedule to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 2, 4, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3:

A. Defendant BB Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B Capital”) was changed fromCC Capital Co., Ltd. to the present trade name on August 31, 2009, and the notary public filed a request for auction on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the authentic copy of a notarial deed of monetary loan loan contract No. 12834, 2008, drafted by the law firm Thai, and was issued a decision to commence compulsory auction on September 5, 201 with Busan District Court Decision 201Mo24172, Busan District Court. On October 4, 2012, the above court: (a) drafted an OOOO, the seizure authority, and the Defendant Republic of Korea (competent Busan District Court), the seizure authority, in the order of three priority to OOO, the seizure authority, in the distribution procedure of the above auction case; and (b) drafted the distribution schedule in the order of three priority to OOO, the seizure authority, and (c) Defendant COB Capital to Defendant 4 and the seizure authority.

B. The Plaintiff, a debtor, was present on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendants as to the entire amount of distribution. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant BB Capital

A. The portion on the dividends of the OO Won to Defendant BB Capital

In a case where the debtor raises an objection against the distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure, the debtor who has raised an objection against the creditor who does not have an executory exemplification, shall file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the creditor who has no executory exemplification, and the debtor who has raised an objection against the creditor who has an executory exemplification shall file a lawsuit of objection against a claim (Articles 256 and 154 (1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act), and in a case where the debtor raises an objection against the creditor who has an executory exemplification on the date of distribution, and thereafter files a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, not a lawsuit of objection against the creditor, such lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da72464, Apr. 14, 2005)

As to the instant case, Defendant BB Capital, as a creditor who filed a request for auction based on the authentic copy of the authentic deed, received a dividend of the OB Capital. As such, Defendant BB Capital is a creditor holding an executory title, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the said dividend amount, even though the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant BB Capital, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution is unlawful.

B. The portion on the dividends of the OOO capital to Defendant BB Capital

On the other hand, Article 154 (1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "a debtor who has raised an objection against a creditor who has no executive title (excluding provisional seizure creditor) shall file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution". Articles 160 (1) 2 and 161 (1) and (2) of the same Act provide that where a dividend creditor is a person holding a provisional seizure right, the distribution court shall deposit the amount of distribution in principle in the case where the dividends creditor is a person holding a provisional seizure right, but when the grounds for deposit are extinguished, the court shall pay a deposit to the provisional seizure creditor, or when the non-existence of the claim to be preserved against the provisional seizure becomes final in the principal lawsuit on the merits, or the provisional seizure execution is revoked due to the revocation of the provisional seizure decision, etc., an additional distribution shall be made to the other creditors. Articles 283, 287, and 288 of the same Act provide a procedure to directly dispute the validity of the provisional seizure through the debtor's objection against the provisional seizure, the order to file a lawsuit against the dividend creditor.

The fact that a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute OOO Won to Defendant BB Capital who is the creditor of provisional seizure is as seen earlier. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit filed against Defendant BB Capital who is the creditor of provisional seizure is also unlawful.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant 00, 000, and 000

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not assert and prove any grounds for objection against the said Defendants against the said Defendants, the Plaintiff’s claim against the said Defendants is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant BB Capital is dismissed as illegal, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the annual output is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.