Whether it is permissible for a tax claimant to request a delivery again by expanding the increased amount of local taxes from the successful bid date to the date of distribution after a claim for delivery was made by final determination of additional charges and increased additional charges on local taxes in arrears until the date of successful bid from the auction date to the date of distribution (negative)

(2) In light of the provisions of Article 31(2) of the Local Tax Act, the additional dues and increased additional dues are to be followed after the statutory due date and the date of registration of mortgage, etc. when considering the heating relationship with other national taxes, chonsegwon, etc., the same amount as the principal tax is to be treated. In this regard, the request for delivery under the Civil Procedure Act is identical in nature to that of the demand for distribution under the Local Tax Act, and it is reasonable to allow only the date of the request for distribution under the Civil Procedure Act to be made (Article 605(1) of the same Act). If the purport of such restriction is to be collected from the proceeds of sale of the object of auction, and the additional dues are not permissible until the date of distribution, but to avoid confusion and confusion arising from the increase of the amount of claims in the auction procedure, because it is not possible for the person having the right to request distribution to have the right to request distribution again to have the right to request for the auction to have the right to request for the fixed amount of claims prior to the date of distribution.

[1] Articles 1(1)13, 27(2), and 31(2) of the Local Tax Act; Article 605(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Da19276 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1305) Supreme Court Decision 98Da21946 delivered on January 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 349) Supreme Court Decision 99Da11526 delivered on March 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 930)

Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Kim Jin-hwan

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Of the dividend table prepared on March 15, 2001 by this Court concerning the auction case of real estate rent in North Korea (Seoul District Court Decision 2000 kn.e., 18,489,372 won against the defendant, 18,164,442 won, and the dividend amount of 4,400,090 won against the plaintiff and the dividend amount of 4,725,020 won against the plaintiff are corrected to 4,725,020 won, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The plaintiff asserts as follows, and the defendant is deemed to have led to confession under Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. In the case of the auction of real estate rent in the Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Ma19076) with respect to the building and 222,276 m2, 621 m2, 621 m2, 276 m2, 200 m2, 358,777 and 452, the above auction court, on March 15, 2001, deducted 3,887,90 won from the successful bid price and interest on deposit, 358,77,452 won, 354,889,462 won, among 354,89,462 won, 27,000 won, 35,000,000 won, 325,000,000 won, 325,000,000 won to the mortgagee and vice-mortgage company of the building, the mortgagee and vice-mortgage company, 4005,40084,4005.

B.On the other hand, the plaintiff requested a delivery of KRW 4,400,090 including property tax, aggregate land tax, urban planning tax, common facilities tax, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "property tax, etc.") and education tax, national tax, and additional charges and increased additional charges until the date of successful tender, which are national taxes, and the amount of additional charges and increased additional charges until the date of successful tender. On October 27, 2000, the plaintiff entrusted the attachment of KRW 621-22,276,00, 621, and attached the above property owned by the above Seocho-do, which was before the date of successful tender on July 23, 2000, and thereafter, on February 15, 2001, the increased additional charges of KRW 324,930,09 (including the increased additional charges of KRW 100,000,000,000) were not applied.

(c)However, the distribution schedule was prepared by the auction court to distribute only the above increased surcharge of KRW 324,930 to the Plaintiff, except for the dividend of KRW 4,400,090,090, the Plaintiff raised an objection only to the above increased surcharge of KRW 324,930, out of the amount distributed to the Defendant on the date of distribution (the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the portion exceeding the above KRW 324,930, out of the amount claimed for delivery by the extended distribution) within the period for filing the lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution.

2. Determination:

As seen above, the Plaintiff filed a claim for delivery at the above auction procedure prior to the successful bid date, and thereafter, filed a claim for re-delivery by expanding the increased amount of KRW 324,930 from the successful bid date to the date of distribution to the date of distribution on February 23, 2001 regarding the above property tax, etc., which was prior to the date of distribution. As such, the Plaintiff asserts to the purport that even though the above increased amount takes precedence over the Defendant’s claim for return of deposit for lease, it is unreasonable to exclude it from the Plaintiff’s amount of distribution

The term "additional dues" under the Local Tax Act refers to the amount to be collected in addition to the notified local tax under the same Act when the local tax is not paid by the deadline for payment (2) and the amount to be added again when the local tax is not paid by the deadline for payment after the expiration of the deadline for payment (see Article 1 (1) 13 of the same Act), and the latter is particularly a "additional additional dues" (see Article 27 (2) of the same Act). In general, additional dues and aggravated additional dues are the kind of incidental dues, which have the character of damages for delay of tax payment as a matter of course arising pursuant to the provisions of the tax law, and if the delinquent amount is not paid within the deadline without the procedure for establishing additional dues and aggravated additional dues, they are naturally due to the provisions of the law and the amount thereof. Accordingly, as in this case, so long as the plaintiff requested for the delivery of the increased additional dues until the date for payment after the expiration of the deadline for payment, there is room to interpret that the above increased additional dues should not be asserted in preference to the above local tax and education tax.

However, this cannot be said to be a reasonable interpretation for the following reasons.

(2) In light of the provisions of Article 31(2) of the Local Tax Act, additional charges and aggravated additional charges are deemed to be an administrative penalty having the nature of sanctions against taxpayers in arrears. (3) In light of the fact that according to the preferential relationship with other national taxes, mortgage, and chonsegwon, the aforementioned statutory period and increased additional charges are to be followed after the date of distribution. (3) Claims for delivery under the Civil Procedure Act are identical to those of the principal tax, and the delivery of claims under the Local Tax Act are not allowed until the date of distribution (see Article 605(1) of the same Act). If the purport of restricting such claims is to prevent excessive distribution of claims from realizing the proceeds of sale of the objects of auction and to avoid confusion arising from the increase of the amount of claims in the auction procedure by 97,00 won prior to the date of delivery of the auction claim, and thus, such claims may not be deemed to have been issued within 97,000 won prior to the date of issuance of the auction claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da194.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, it is reasonable that the auction court distributes only the local tax, education tax, and additional charges (including increased additional charges) that the plaintiff requested to deliver, which occurred until July 26, 200, the successful bid date, in preference to the defendant's claim for the return of the lease deposit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Byung-chul