If the request for issuance is received from the court, even if the department in charge of the auction case has mistakenly entered it, the dividend is legitimate.

Even if the chief of a tax office erroneously states the department in charge of the auction case in the column for the receiver of a postal item containing a written request for issuance, unless the written request for issuance is received by the auction court, the dividend of the auction court pursuant to the written request for issuance

2016 Gohap 104150 Demurrer

○ Fund

Korea

November 17, 2016

December 1, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

○○ District Court 2015 0000 and 2015 0000 for a compulsory auction of real estate, respectively, shall be corrected to KRW 322,498,810 for the defendant, and KRW 121,845,229 for the plaintiff, in the dividend table prepared by the above court on April 29, 2016, as KRW 44,344,039 for each of the amount of dividends against the defendant, and KRW 121,845,229 for the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted a provisional attachment order (amounting to KRW 970,000,000) with ○○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○ ○○-dong ○○○ 321.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by thisA and completed the provisional attachment registration as of June 18, 2015 by the ○○ District Court 2015Kadan0000 (the claim amount to KRW 970,000).

2) The Defendant, as a national tax collector of thisA, has a total of 364,647,950 won, including global income tax, etc., the payment period of which falls on November 30, 2014. On July 3, 2015, the Defendant seized the instant real estate on the ground that thisA was in arrears with global income tax of KRW 7,112,000, and completed the attachment registration by the above court ○○ registry office of registry of the court on July 3, 2015.

(b) Commencement of auction, sale of real estate, etc.;

1) On September 1, 2015, 2015, the ○○ District Court (hereinafter “○○ District Court”) rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction as to the instant real estate (the completion period for demanding distribution is October 30, 2015; hereinafter “instant auction”) and the instant real estate was sold to ChoB on March 28, 2016 in the said auction procedure.

2) On October 2, 2015, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Defendant’s jurisdiction prepared a written request for the delivery of KRW 301,307,630 in total, the amount of delinquent taxes of thisA (hereinafter “instant request for delivery”) and sent it to the ○○ District Court. On October 12, 2015, the said written request for the delivery was received to the ○○ District Court. However, on the part of the recipient of a postal item containing the said written request for delivery, the said written request for delivery was filed with the ○ District Court on October 12, 2015. However, on the part of the recipient of a postal item containing the said written request, the “○○ District Court auction auction 7”, which is not the department in charge of the said auction case, stated “○○ District

3) On December 17, 2015, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Defendant’s control prepared a written request for the delivery of KRW 346,067,060,060, total amount of delinquent tax of thisA, and sent it to the ○ District Court. The said written request was received from the ○○ District Court on December 21, 2015.

4) On April 15, 2016, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Defendant’s control prepared a written request for the delivery of KRW 358,804,410 in total, the amount of delinquent tax of thisA, and sent it to the ○ District Court. The said written request was received from the ○ District Court on April 16, 2016.

(c) Preparation of distribution schedule;

On April 29, 2016, the above court determined the amount to be distributed as KRW 1,402,741,612 on the date of distribution as KRW 322,49,810 to the defendant (○○ Tax Office), and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) with the content of distributing KRW 121,845,229 to the plaintiff as the holder of the right of provisional seizure, who is the holder of the right of provisional seizure, as the holder of the right of provisional seizure, as the holder of the right of provisional seizure. The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The completion period for demand for distribution of the instant auction procedure was October 30, 2015. However, the Defendant did not make a lawful request until the completion period for demand for distribution (the Defendant first filed a request for delivery on December 21, 2015, which was after the completion period for demand for distribution, and submitted an additional request for delivery on April 10, 2016). Therefore, the amount to be distributed to the Defendant should be limited to the amount of seizure (7,112,00 won) on the registration of seizure on the instant real estate.

B. Determination

On October 12, 2015, the fact that the request for the issuance of this case prepared by the head of ○○ District Tax Office under the Defendant’s control received with the ○○ District Court on or before October 30, 2015 is as seen earlier. The fact that the request for the delivery of this case was received with the ○○ District Court prior to October 30, 2015, which is the final period for the demand for distribution of the auction procedure of this case (at least the above request for delivery was received by the above court, the ○○ District Court’s 4rds other than the ○○ District Court’s 7ths other than the ○○ District Court’s 7ths of the auction case’s ○○ District Court’s 4ths of the auction case’s ○○ District Court’s 7ths of the auction case’s 7ths of the auction procedure is merely a separate independent court, or the Defendant’s receipt of the request for the delivery of this case’s 2015.

3. Conclusion

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