2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

With respect to the auction of real estate rent in the Incheon District Court 2015ta-2890, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be deleted from 31,024,267 won and the amount shall be corrected to be distributed to the plaintiff among the dividend table prepared by this court on October 20, 2015.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

A. The Plaintiff, a creditor of the Nonparty, who was the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (the date of establishment of a collateral security) against the second floor of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and the second floor Yengsung-gu, and the Nonparty owned, filed an application for voluntary auction of the said building on January 15, 2015, the lower court around 2015ta2890.

B. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim for the issuance of the value-added tax at the above auction procedure on the ground that the Nonparty failed to pay the value-added tax equivalent to KRW 245,430,460 for the first year of 2009.

C. The above building was sold on July 31, 2015, and this court, on October 20, 2015, prepared a distribution schedule that distributed KRW 31,024,267 to the Defendant and did not distribute to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant’s distribution on the date of distribution.

D. The circumstances leading up to the imposition of value-added tax by the Defendant against the Nonparty in January 2009 are as follows.

The actual value-added tax return by Nonparty

The value-added tax amount included in the main text shall be 46,357,734 won on July 16, 2009, 200 ○○○○ 88,268,509,000.

The actual value-added tax payment notice by the Defendant (the Defendant did not pay the value-added tax after filing the value-added tax return).

The attached value-added tax (including additional tax) of ○○○○ 89,407,170 won (including additional tax) on September 8, 2009, 46,955,740 won (including additional tax) on September 8, 2009.

The actual value-added tax correction notice by the Defendant (the Defendant issued a notice of increase or correction on the following grounds that the Nonparty reported sales less than the sales at the time of filing a value-added tax return).

The attached value-added tax amount included in the main text shall be KRW 49,938,640 on July 1, 2010 (the increase in KRW 2,982,90) on July 1, 2010, ○○○○ 92,54,980 (the increase in KRW 3,147,810) on the payment notice date of the attached value-added tax.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including various numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the non-party's value-added tax for the first period of July 1, 2010, for which the defendant requested delivery in the auction procedure, was notified of correction on July 1, 2010, the statutory due date shall be July 1, 2010, which is the date of the delivery of the tax payment notice pursuant to Article 35 (1) 3 (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The establishment of the plaintiff's right to collateral security against the non-party was made on August 18, 2009, which is the date of the above statutory due date, and the defendant's right to collateral security shall not have priority over the plaintiff's right to collateral security.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Value-added tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is obligated to pay taxes by filing a return on his/her own tax base and amount of tax, and thus, the statutory due date for filing a return under Article 35(1)3 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be the statutory due date. The date for filing a return of value-added tax on July 16, 2009 and July 17, 2009 by the Nonparty is the date for filing a return of value-added tax on July 16, 2009 and the date for filing a return of value-added tax on July 17, 2009, the date for

C. Determination

On the other hand, in the case of taxation by the method of filing a tax return, the statutory date for determining the priority between secured claims, such as mortgage and the amount of tax on the reported tax amount shall be deemed the date of filing a tax return. However, in cases where the tax base and amount of tax are not reported or the government determines or decides the tax base and amount of tax on the grounds that there are no errors or omissions in the details of return, etc., the tax liability becomes final and conclusive at the time of determining the tax base and amount of tax, so the notified tax amount shall be deemed the date on which the tax payment notice is sent and the order of priority should be determined (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da63732, Jan. 24, 2003; 2005Da10845, Feb. 22, 2007, supra, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da70605, Dec. 9, 2010, which the Defendant reported the tax base and amount of tax on the tax return, and thus, it should be deemed the statutory due date for collecting the tax amount.

Therefore, the statutory due date for the defendant's non-party's claim for value-added tax in January 2009 is July 1, 2010, which is the date of sending a tax notice for the decision of correction, and the plaintiff's right to collateral security established before it shall take priority over the defendant's claim.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, with respect to a reported amount of tax under the provisions of Article 22-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the statutory due date for tax payment notice should not be regarded as the date on which the notice of tax payment was sent on the grounds that there was a decision of correction that does not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or other tax-related Acts with regard to the amount of tax initially determined. However, the main legislative purpose of Article 22-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to restrict objection as much as the amount of tax initially determined in the initial return or determination due to the lapse of the objection period even if a correction disposition is made, and it is difficult to view as a provision of Article 22-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes that the initial return or determination after the correction disposition is not absorption with the correction disposition (Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17390, May 14, 2009). Therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the statutory due date for tax return should be separate only for the amount initially determined on the basis of Article 222(1).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of value-added tax against the non-party for whom the defendant requested delivery to this court was made does not take precedence over the claim secured by the plaintiff's right to collateral security, and the 31,024,267 won distributed to the defendant shall be distributed to the plaintiff. Therefore, the court shall delete the amount of 31,024,267 won distributed to the defendant and distribute the plaintiff among the distribution table prepared on October 20, 2015, which was prepared by the court on October 20, 2015. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)