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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on October 30, 2013 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's Suwon Branch's WOOOOOOO, the dividend amount to the defendant shall be corrected to OOO, and the dividend amount to the plaintiff shall be corrected to OOOO.

A. The Plaintiff, based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation against KimA, received a claim attachment and collection order as to the claim for dividend withdrawal concerning the compulsory auction against the Defendant of the Suwon District Court in Suwon District Court 2013TO as the branch court of Suwon District Court 2013TO of Suwon District Court in relation to the Defendant of KimA (hereinafter “instant claim”), and the Defendant received the above claim attachment and collection order on May 29, 2013.

B. On September 5, 2013, the head of the OO tax office seized the claim of this case in order to collect the aggregate of the value-added tax in arrears (including additional dues; hereinafter “value-added tax in this case”) against KimA on September 5, 2013, and the Defendant received the notice of attachment of the above claim on September 9, 2013.

C. As the seizure of the instant claims competes with each other, the Defendant deposited the amount of claims with Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon District Court of 2013 as Geumwon District Court of 2013, and on October 30, 2013, the distribution court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that the amount to be actually distributed to the Defendant (as for the distribution order: 1, the reasons: the seizure authority) was distributed to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends against the Defendant.

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

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the extinctive prescription of value-added tax claim of this case has expired five years after the due date for payment at the time of the distribution procedure of this case, it is reasonable to correct the amount of dividends to the defendant as an OO, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff as an OO.

B. Determination

(1) On March 31, 200 to November 30, 205, the time limit for payment of value-added tax claims of this case is as seen earlier. Thus, although it is apparent that five years have passed since the said time limit for payment of dividends, seizure of construction machinery registered under the Construction Machinery Management Act or automobiles registered under the Automobile Management Act becomes effective at the time of completion of the seizure registration (Articles 46(1) and 47 of the National Tax Collection Act), Gap evidence 5-1 and 5-2, Eul's certificate, and the fact that the above time limit for payment of value-added tax was terminated after the above time limit for payment of dividends of this case, and the fact that the above time limit for seizure of the construction machinery was terminated after the above time limit for payment of dividends of this case's 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 20, 300, 20, 200, 30, 27, 200.

D. On May 23, 2005, the Plaintiff asserts that the attachment of this case was null and void since it was registered as zero won on the instant construction machine register. In full view of the purport of the argument as to Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, the attachment of this case was completed at zero won on the instant construction machine register. Meanwhile, the head of the OOOO office entrusted the attachment registration of this case to the head of OOO after the attachment of the instant construction machine in order to collect OO (including additional dues) from the value-added tax on May 18, 2005. The fact that the attachment registration was completed on May 23, 2005 is stated in Eul evidence No. 1, and the fact that the above delinquent amount was to be collected until the time of full payment of the argument as to the OO office of this court, and the head of OO office did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the amount of the attachment of this case was null and void based on the above circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.