No national tax imposed on a third person who has transferred mortgaged real estate to a third person by the mortgager, shall be collected preferentially.

If the mortgaged real estate is transferred from the mortgager to the third party, and if no tax is due prior to the mortgage, the national or local tax imposed on the third party who is the transferee shall not be collected first because the statutory due date is prior to or due to the third party.

2014dada5251 Return of unjust enrichment

Gangwon-A Saemaul Fund

Korea

May 22, 2015

June 19, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from November 19, 2014 to the day of complete payment. 2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 201, the Plaintiff leased KRW 170,000,00 to the non-party 170,000,000 to the non-party 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 201, the Plaintiff, at the time, applied for the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”) that set forth the maximum debt amount as OO for the land and buildings located in the 19,342-1 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) of the Young-gu District Court registry office, Daegu District Court No. 3641, which received on October 21, 2011. The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the non-party 1, the Plaintiff was entitled to the registration of ownership transfer on November 25, 2013, which was lower than that of the non-party 1, to the non-party 2, the Defendant did not voluntarily pay dividends to the non-party 4 of the Daegu District Court.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Upon the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of delinquent taxes on the instant real estate was ICA at the time of voluntary auction, and that the amount of delinquent taxes on the instant real estate cannot be deemed as having priority over the instant right to collateral security established at the time of the ownership of the said real estate by Cho-A, the former owner of the said real estate, and that the Defendant should return the amount received as dividends to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Therefore, the reason why the defendant received senior dividends from the plaintiff in the voluntary auction procedure for the real estate in this case seems to be that the statutory due date of each tax in arrears was earlier than the date of the plaintiff's creation of the mortgage in this case. Thus, it is interpreted that the mortgage-backed claims that are preferentially protected by the provisions of Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes are based on the relationship with the mortgagee at the time of establishment of the mortgage in this case, and that the mortgage-backed claims that are excluded from priority collection of national taxes or local taxes should be interpreted as based on the mortgagee's liability for tax payment. Even if the mortgagee transferred the mortgaged real estate to a third party and the transferee was not in arrears with national taxes or local taxes, under the current administrative court without special provisions, the mortgage-backed claims cannot be collected prior to the legal due date of national taxes or local taxes imposed on the third party, which was transferred from the mortgagee, and if there was no tax in arrears with the said establisher, the mortgage-backed claims cannot be collected prior to the legal due date of national taxes or local taxes.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 20% per annum from November 19, 2014 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, which was distributed to the Plaintiff in the discretionary auction procedure for the instant real estate (the Defendant shall be deemed a malicious beneficiary from October 29, 2014, which is the date of the instant lawsuit, by losing the suit in question, from October 29, 2014, which is the date of the instant lawsuit. Thus, there is no problem regarding calculating the legal interest and damages for delay from the date following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, which is the date of the instant lawsuit, to the Plaintiff.

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.