The defendants did not have any claim against the owner of the commercial building of this case and only lent only the name for the registration of the right to collateral security.

Although the delinquent taxpayer and the Defendants jointly completed the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the commercial building of this case, since the right to collateral security of this case is aimed at securing the delinquent taxpayer's loan claims against the commercial building owner, the amount of dividends based on the right to collateral security of this case should be distributed to the Plaintiff (the State) who attached the right to collateral security claims against the

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011 Gohap 21373 Demurrer against distribution

Korea

KimAA et al.

May 4, 2012

June 1, 2012

1. The Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010Ma14640, 201Ma7700, and 16766 (Duals) from among the dividend table prepared on October 31, 2011, the amount of dividends to Defendant KimA and the amount of dividends to Defendant YoonB shall be deleted, respectively, and the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 000,000,000.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff notified the CCS Location Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCS Location”) of the total amount of KRW 000,000,000,000,000 for corporate tax in 2006, but, under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff was designated as the secondary taxpayer on July 18, 2008 due to the failure to pay taxes. The Plaintiff has a national tax claim amounting to KRW 00,00 as of October 31, 201 with respect to Jeju Island.

B. On February 21, 2008, the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOdong No. 000 and three parcels O apartment markets (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) have been sold at a voluntary auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer. JejuD leased KRW 000 to KimD on the same day as the sales price of the instant commercial building, and obtained 00 won the maximum debt amount to the instant commercial building as the security of the said loan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”).

C. On May 22, 2008, the Plaintiff (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010Da5629 delivered on September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff’s disposition office) attached DaD and the Defendants’ right to collateral security against KimD as the garnishee on the ground of delinquency in national tax, and attached DoD before the final and conclusive preservation of DoD as the garnishee. On July 5, 2010, the real estate in the name of KimD was provisionally seized in order to receive repayment of the above claim, and then filed a lawsuit against DoD on July 5, 2010, the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201-Ma5629 delivered on September 30, 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 2, 2010.

D. Upon the application of KimE, the creditor of KimD, in relation to the instant commercial building, the execution of the auction procedure for the voluntary auction of real estate was conducted at around 14640, Seoul Southern District Court No. 2010, around 2011, around 7700, and around 16766, around 201. The execution court, at the above auction procedure, distributes the amount to be actually distributed to the first small lessee on October 31, 201, the total sum of KRW 00 to be distributed to the first small lessee on October 31, 201, and distributed KRW 00 to the Plaintiff, who is the seizure authority of the second-class Defendants and the second-class seizure authority of the right to seize the mortgage claim of the second-class Defendants and JejuD, and the remaining balance to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the seizure authority, prepared a distribution schedule for each of the aforementioned dividends to be distributed to Geumcheon, Kim Jong, Kim E, limited liability companies, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution schedule”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including partial heading number);

The purport of all pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants did not have any contractual and contractual relationship with KimD, and state DoD lent money to KimD only in the name of the mortgagee at the time of lending the money to Jeju DoD, and thus, the instant secured mortgage claim constitutes a State DoD’s claim. Therefore, in the auction procedure of this case, the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff among the dividend table prepared by the executing court at the auction procedure of this case, shall be corrected from KRW 000 to KRW 000, and each dividend amount to the Defendants shall be deleted.

B. Defendant KimA’s assertion

Defendant KimA entered into a sales commission agreement on January 2006 with respect to the sale of "Stocheon Game" with Jeju Island, and entered into a sales performance-based payment agreement on May 2006. Defendant Kim A sells the above game machine of 617 units in 11 games until June 2006, Defendant Kim AA has a total of KRW 000 of sales commission bonds and KRW 000 of sales commission bonds and KRW 000 of sales performance-based bonds against Jeju Island. However, while Jeju Island did not pay the above sales commission and performance-based bonds, it was established on February 2, 2008 by lending KRW 00 to KimD and jointly on the commercial building of this case. The dividend payment based on the title of Defendant Kim A Kim A in the name of this case is valid, and the due date is valid.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

In full view of the above evidence and the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 7 through 9, the whole purport of the pleadings is examined.

Recognizing the facts such as negative.

1) On July 2005, Jeju Island established and operated the GGGG for the purpose of producing game software, etc., and changed its trade name around April 2007 to theCC’s location, and managed it including funds, by April 30, 2007.

2) Around May 2008, Jeju Regional Tax Office filed a complaint with the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office on suspected facts, such as: (a) the provision of a game machine without issuing a tax invoice; (b) the provision of a false tax invoice in the case of purchase of parts; (c) the provision of value-added tax and corporate tax, etc. was evaded; and (d) the sales proceeds of theCC location in cash were managed through a borrowed and large passbook, and used for personal purposes. The above accusation stated that the funds withdrawn from the borrowed passbook in relation to the instant case were used for corporate bonds against KimD, including KRW 00,00.

3) Examining the course of lending KimD, the amount of KRW 000 was withdrawn from the Korean bank account under the name of Defendant KimA, and was remitted to the new bank account under the name of this HH certified judicial scrivener, and was used again as the proceeds from the sale of the instant commercial building in the name of KimD.

(4) Defendant KimA appeared at the Seoul Regional Tax Office on May 21, 2008 with respect to the tax investigation on the location ofCC and stated that he/she carried out financial business as ordered by Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.

6) Meanwhile, Defendant B voluntarily acquired the instant mortgage by using Defendant B’s name in the name of Defendant HaB on the basis that the state D had his seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression in this court, and at the time Defendant B stated that it was unaware of such circumstances.

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, Defendant KimA alleged that the right to collateral security was jointly created by KimD instead of receiving 000 won sales commission and performance-based loan claims from DoD, but it appears that DoD was engaged in money transactions while using several borrowed passbooks, and that the head of Do in the name of Defendant KimA was the same. In the above tax investigation, Defendant KimA also lent the name in accordance with the orders of DoD, as seen earlier. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that Defendant KimA lent the money to DoD without obtaining a certificate of loan from DoD or KimD, and that all of the claims against DoD were not secured by Do Governor, and that the above claims against Do Governor were not secured by Do Governor, and that the above claims against Do Governor were not secured by 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 won were not secured by DoD, and that the Defendants did not have any other evidence.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, among the distribution schedule of the instant auction procedure, the amount of dividends against Defendant KimA, which is premised on the premise that the Defendants is a valid mortgagee, KRW 000 and KRW 000 of the amount of dividends against Defendant YoonB shall be deleted, respectively, and KRW 000 shall be corrected to KRW 000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is accepted on the grounds of all of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.