1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court shall explain this case in this case are changed to “an entry” and the part which stated “an entry of a dividend” is changed to “an entry”, and the 10th of the judgment of the first instance.

In the end of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the decision of the court of first instance as follows, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion on supplementary judgment basically refers to the Daejeon Metropolitan City, Jung-si, the Tax Claim Authority which takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s mortgage, and the Defendant’s seizure of all property of the Korea-Japan Construction, the delinquent taxpayer, and even if having received dividends in the prior distribution procedure, it is the premise that the request for distribution or delivery should be made actively in the subsequent distribution procedure.

However, there is no ground to impose an obligation to make a request for delivery or a request for distribution on the preceding taxation right holder when taking the seizure procedure for all properties of the defaulted taxpayer or the auction or public auction procedure is in progress, depending on the incidental circumstances that there is a junior mortgagee.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the subrogation right of the subordinated mortgagee is only passive rights only when the preferential right to pay taxes on various real estate owned by the delinquent taxpayer is exercised, and it is not active rights to actively seize all real estate owned by the delinquent taxpayer and to demand the delivery or distribution in the auction or public sale procedure.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that if all the Defendant exercised preferential rights in the auction or public auction proceedings on the entire real estate of this case, which takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security, the Plaintiff would have received dividends of KRW 455,635,836.

3. Conclusion.