2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On October 21, 201, Kim00: (a) transferred 00/Do 00,000 Do 00,000 Do 821-52 and 243.9 square meters on October 21, 201; (b) reported capital gains tax on January 31, 2012; (c) while the Defendant did not pay KRW 79,859,805, the reported amount of tax, the Defendant decided to notify a non-payment of capital gains tax for the year 2011 and sent a notice of payment to Kim0, but the capital gains tax was overdue because Kim0 did not pay it.

B. The 00 Bank: (a) April 17, 2012; (b) 00 Dong 00 Dong 340 Dong 101

With respect to 1002 'the real estate of this case' (hereinafter referred to as 'the real estate of this case'), a mortgage contract covering a maximum debt amount of KRW 600,000 is concluded, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage is completed on the same day.

C. After that, Kim 00 did not timely repay the above collateral security debt to the 00 bank, and this did not so.

00 Bank applied for a discretionary auction of real estate (Seoul 00 District Court 000 Mata 0000),

On March 28, 2013, the auction court rendered a ruling to commence auction.

D. On April 10, 2013, the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office filed a claim for issuance of the said auction procedure by asserting that there was a tax claim of KRW 92,885,70 (hereinafter “the transfer income tax of this case”) in the aggregate of KRW 80,770,200 and additional dues KRW 12,115,50 on May 28, 2012, which was the statutory due date in the auction court on May 10, 2012, and KRW 92,885,70 (hereinafter “instant transfer income tax”). However, on October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for issuance again by stating the statutory due date as January 31, 2012.

E. The Defendant acquired the above collateral security claim from 00 bank against Kim 00.

F. On the date of distribution held on January 27, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the date of distribution of this case”), the Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution of dividends, and the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute all KRW 347,436,209, excluding KRW 25,000,000 to the lessee of the small amount of claims in the instant real estate, but the said distribution schedule became final and conclusive, by raising an objection thereto or filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution within the filing period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

In light of Article 22(1) and Article 45-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in full view of Article 35(1)3(a) and (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer files a tax return within the statutory due date for filing a request for the issuance of the amount of delinquent tax in an auction procedure, as long as the legal due date is legitimate (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29697, Sept. 11, 2008), insofar as the request for the delivery is lawful, the priority order pursuant to substantive law shall not be extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da29697, Sept. 11, 2008). The transfer income tax shall be determined based on the time when the tax base and tax amount are reported and the date when the tax base and tax amount are reported within the statutory due date for filing the tax return, and thus, the tax base and tax amount of the transferor shall be determined based on the statutory due date and the notification.

According to the above facts, the actual statutory date of the transfer income tax of this case shall be deemed to be January 31, 2012, when the taxpayer Kim 00 filed a report. As such, the above statutory date shall be deemed to be more than the date of the defendant's establishment registration ( April 17, 2012) and the auction court excluded the plaintiff from the distribution of dividends and distributes the amount of delinquent tax to the defendant to the amount of KRW 92,885,700, thereby making unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount, and the plaintiff suffered losses.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from September 20, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of complete payment, pursuant to the above unjust enrichment of 92,85,700 won and the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff claimed the issuance on May 1, 2012, after indicating the statutory date of the transfer income tax of this case as of May 1, 2012 after the date of the establishment registration prior to the date of the establishment registration of the mortgage, and that the statutory date was revised as of the date of the establishment registration prior to the date of the establishment registration of the mortgage prior to the date of the dividend closing, but the Defendant did not raise any objection even though the auction court did not recognize the priority of the statutory date revised, and therefore, the Defendant asserts that the statutory date was wrong.

However, as seen earlier, the taxpayer's return of tax base of transfer income and the date of receipt is accurately stated, and there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant trusted the above error and formed a new legal relationship. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.