2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○ City is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In the case of the auction of real estate in the case of the auction of real estate in the district court, the District Court, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, 2014, the High Court, the 61,080,512 won in the dividend table prepared by the above court on October 16, 2015, and the 196,004,906 won in the amount of dividends to the plaintiff, the 137,502,808 won in the amount of dividends to the defendant ○○○, and the 10,351,310 won in the amount of dividends to the defendant ○○○, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to 7,72,896 won, respectively.

(a) A total of 30 parcels of land, including ○○ ○ Do, ○ Do, 64-60, etc., ○○ Do, ○○ Do;

In the form of an aggregate building on the land of 1,497 square meters, which is located in the form of an aggregate building, the BB shall hold the auction on April 8, 2009.

through B, the total area of 19 parcels, including ○○ City ○○-dong 64-60, which is part of the above ○○ New Market site.

The ownership of 1,072 square meters was acquired.

B. On October 21, 2009, the DamageCC’s ○ New Market No. 101 and 60-2000,000

Non-201 "No. 101" (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each auction building of this case")

Each owner of 2/3 shares becomes the owner of each 2/3 shares, and DoD is each auction building of this case on October 30, 2009.

Each one-third share becomes the owner of each share.

C.B shall be the site for the ○ New Market on October 30, 2009 (total 19 parcels) it acquired on October 30, 2009.

(2) Each transfer registration of ownership was made to Doz. on October 30, 2009, with respect to the registration of each transfer of ownership on the registry as the grounds for the registration of each transfer of ownership on the registry.

It is written as ‘transaction'.

D. The DamageCC and DoD were transferred each of the above shares from thisB, and immediately registered as a site for each of the auction buildings of this case.

E. On October 30, 2009, ○○○ Cooperative made a registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage over each of the auction buildings of this case for which the right to a site was additionally established as a joint security, with the entire maximum debt amount of 769,600,000 won, and the debtor as a DoD. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2010, HaE made a registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage over the share of the DamageCC (each of 2/3) of each of the auction buildings of this case as of November 15, 2010.

F. Around October 30, 2009, EB transferred shares to EB for the establishment of a site for each of the instant auction buildings to EB had been identified as a “donation, not a sale,” and the Plaintiff (Disposition Office: Mapo Tax Office) registered seizure of ED shares (1/3) among each of the instant auction buildings on September 9, 201 on the ground that EB had a gift tax on EB, a donee, due to the occurrence of gift tax on EB.

G. To establish the site right of each of the auction buildings of this case to the DamageCC on October 30, 2009

As to the transferred shares, the Plaintiff (the disposal agency: Samsung) revealed as not a sale but a “donation,” the substance of which is not a sale.

On October 21, 201, the tax office registered seizure of the shares of the DamageCC (each of 2/3) among each of the auction buildings of this case on the grounds that gift tax had occurred to the DamageCC, a donee.

(h) At the request of the EEE, the District Court of the District Court of the Republic of Korea, 2014 M&D 2014 M&D.

In 10744, among each auction buildings of this case, the auction procedure of real estate auction was carried out for the entire auction buildings of this case by the above court 2014ta 32614 at the request of the ○○○○○○○○○ Union, and the auction procedure of real estate auction was carried out for the entire auction buildings of this case (each auction procedure was combined; hereinafter referred to as “the auction procedure of this case”).

I. The Defendant on August 25, 2015, on the collateral security of ○○○○○○○, Inc.

○○○○ Company was registered for transfer to A.I.D., on the other hand, Defendant A.I.D.’s status

The right to collateral security was established on the mortgage.

(j) On October 16, 2015, in the instant auction procedure, the office clerk of the administrative court rendered the Plaintiff’s ED and the grandchildrenCC

Each gift tax is imposed on the property pursuant to the proviso of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(hereinafter referred to as "the tax") under the premise that it does not correspond to "the tax" 710,801,670 won to be actually distributed;

Of the plaintiff's dividend amount of KRW 0 and the person entitled to deliver the handCC shares among each auction property of this case

Go○○ City’s dividend amount of KRW 10,351,310 shall be KRW 196,04,906,00 for Defendant A’s dividend amount of KRW 196,04,90.

The distribution schedule, including the content to be addressed, was prepared.

(k) On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff (Disposal Office: Samsung Tax Office) was present at Defendant ○○-si on the date of distribution.

With respect to KRW 3,600,640 out of the amount of dividends, each objection was raised against KRW 42,648,100 out of the amount of dividends of Defendant AA.

Grounds for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers if there is a serial number)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the action against the defendant A against the defendant is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Creditors who have raised an objection to the amount of distribution to other creditors on the date of distribution shall be within one week from the date of distribution.

In addition, since the correction of the defendant constitutes the filing of a lawsuit against a new defendant due to the kind of replacement of the parties, the correction of the defendant constitutes the filing of a lawsuit against a new defendant, if the defendant's correction is made, the compliance

The effect shall arise when filing an application for rectification (Articles 265 and 260(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, if the Defendant’s rectification is made, whether the period for filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution has been complied with ought to be determined at the time when the application for rectification was filed (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27139, Aug. 22, 2003).

According to the above-mentioned evidence and the significant facts in this court, the plaintiff on October 2015, the date of distribution.

16. From October 23, 2015, the defendant, who filed the instant lawsuit on October 23, 2015, ○○○○.

Inasmuch as a corporation and ○○○ City (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○ City”) have been written respectively, and the fact that 7 days have elapsed since the date of distribution, which was clear from the date of distribution, filed an application for correction of ○○○ corporation on October 27, 2015 as Defendant A, the part against Defendant A in the lawsuit in this case against Defendant A is unlawful as the filing period has lapsed.

3. Determination on Defendant ○○○ City

A. Each argument between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ City

1) Plaintiff

Gift tax imposed on the DamageCC (the gift tax and additional charge that occurred around 2011), 95,241,972 won

c) The ○○ Union, a collateral security interest, will be imposed on future damages andCC shares.

Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes because it was possible to predict the tax to a considerable extent.

applicable to this section.

Therefore, the entire amount of 710,801,670 won to be actually distributed to each of the auction items of this case

The money equivalent to 127,94,300 won (710,801,670 won x 0.18) corresponding to the portion of land (18%) is 85,296,200 won (127,94,300 x 036 x 06 x 07 x 06 x 036). The land subject to donation is 1,072 square meters out of 1,497 square meters of total site area of 00 new market. Ultimately, the money equivalent to the corresponding tax of the DamageCC out of the actual amount to be distributed is 61,080,512 won (85,296,200 x 85,296,200).

In the instant auction procedure, the said KRW 61,080,512, which is within the scope of the gift tax imposed upon the DamageCC, should have been preferentially distributed. Of them, only KRW 7,772,896, among the above, to Defendant ○○-si.

Defendant ○○ even though he distributed dividends to the Plaintiff and distributed the remainder of KRW 2,578,414 to the Plaintiff

10,351,310 won is erroneous and thus each correction is sought.

2) Defendant ○○-si

○○ Partnership’s reasonable degree that gift tax shall be imposed on the share of CC.

Therefore, this does not correspond to the pertinent tax, and the distribution schedule on Defendant ○○ City is justified.

B. Whether the ○○ Association’s predictability exists

Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes refers to transactions related to secured rights accompanying public disclosure.

Requests for public interest to ensure safety and to secure the realization of tax claims;

in order to properly harmonize such legislation, such legislation's purpose is to ensure that the tax has secured real rights.

secured claims, even if they take precedence over such secured claims, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the security rights.

The term "property" and "national tax imposed on the property" in the proviso of Article 35 (1) 3 of the same Act, and "national tax imposed on the person who acquires the security right by way of security in the future" and "the imposition on the property in the future" can be predicted to the extent that the person who acquires the security right by way

It should be deemed to mean only the national tax imposed by recognizing the capacity to pay the tax (Supreme Court).

Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da23184 Decided March 18, 1999, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da49534 Decided June 14, 2002, etc.

According to the statements 1, 5, and 6 of Gap evidence 1-1, 5, and 6 and the testimony of EF, EF shall be Ed;

The fact that the LCC is a friendship of this BB and is a person in the same business relationship with the FF, and that the ○○ Union demanded that D et al. establish an additional right to a site on each of the auction goods of this case as collateral of the loan around October 30, 2009. It is recognized that the BB, DD, and DaCC added a portion of shares of the aggregate of 1,072m2m2 of the goldcheon Market site that the ○B owned through a certified judicial scrivener introduced by the ○○ Association and introduced by the ○○ Association, thereby adding it to the site ownership of each of the auction goods of this case. This fact is recognized that the B transferred a part of the share of the site for each of the auction goods of this case to ○○CC et al., and registered the site ownership of each of the auction goods of this case as the site for each of the auction goods of this case, and then the act of establishing the right to a site ownership on October 30, 2009.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding up the aforementioned evidence and the testimony of the witness Park GG, that is, the registry of each auction goods of this case, stating that the reason why the BB transferred part of the site share in the ○○ New Market to the ○CC, that the ○○ Union was involved in the ○○ Union's request for the registration of the site right, and that the acquisition method of the site right was not an important matter. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that the ○○ Union could have predicted that the gift tax was imposed on the ○○ at the time of establishing the right to collateral security on each of the auction goods of this case, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Even when it is assumed that the ○○ Cooperative was possible to predict, in case where the creditor claims priority against other creditors and raises an objection against the distribution schedule, the distribution court may only raise an objection against the creditors related to the amount of dividends up to the time when the amount of demand for distribution by the creditor, which would not have been received if the distribution court accepted the plaintiff’s objection from the beginning and made the distribution schedule, that is, the creditors related to the amount of dividends up to the time when the amount of demand for distribution by the creditor, who raised an objection thereto, pursuant to the distribution schedule, falls short of the amount of demand for distribution by the creditor, who is the most subordinate creditors under the distribution schedule. Defendant ○○ City is a creditor who takes precedence over the Defendant YA and other creditors, and is deemed to have received dividends of KRW 10,351,310, which is the whole amount of the claim (one of whether the pertinent tax at ○○ City specifically occurred with respect

4. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case against Defendant A among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the defendant is dismissed.

The claim against ○○ City is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.