to calculate the amount of delinquent taxes payable only upon the request for delivery submitted.

In addition to the submission of a written request for issuance, any evidential document that can calculate the amount of delinquent taxes by the date of distribution is not submitted, and the amount of delinquent taxes can not be calculated only on the basis of a written request for issuance submitted that the attachment was not submitted on the auction record.

2012 grouped 62166 of the Demurrer

Korea

AAA et al.

May 14, 2013

June 25, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On October 26, 2012, the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012TWD 3122, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff among the dividend table prepared by the same court on October 26, 2012 is KRW 000,000, the amount of dividends to the defendantOO is KRW 000,000, and the amount of dividends to the defendantOO is KRW 000,000, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry into Gap, Eul, 2, and 6, under no dispute between the parties:

A. On February 21, 2012, 2012, the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Seongdong-gu District Court Decision 201Do3122, Feb. 22, 2011) filed an application for auction of real estate rent with respect to the real estate owned by Kim Young-hee (Seoul Seongdong-gu multi-household house 0000 and one parcel of land, multi-household 00000), which is the creditor of Kim Young-OO and the right to collateral security, and the decision to commence auction was rendered on February 22, 2011

B. On the date of sale conducted on August 13, 2012 at the above auction procedure, Nonparty O received the above real estate light, and on August 20, 2012, Nonparty O paid the price in full upon obtaining the decision to permit the sale from the above court.

C. Next, on the date of distribution implemented on October 26, 2012, the actual dividend amount of KRW 000, excluding the cost of execution, was paid to the person having the right to deliver (the relevant tax) by Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and Defendant AA was paid KRW 000 in the first order as the person having the right to deliver (the relevant tax), and Defendant AA was paid KRW 000 in the second order as the person having the right to make a subrogation, and Defendant AA was paid KRW 00 in the second order as the person having the right to request a distribution, and Nonparty A was paid KRW 00 in the second order as the person having the right to request a distribution, and Nonparty A was paid KRW 00 in the third order as the lessee, and the Plaintiff (second tax secretary) was paid KRW 400 in the fourth order as the person having the right to demand a distribution, and KRW 000 in the fifth order as the person having the right

D. On the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on November 2, 2012.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff completed the attachment registration by the disposition on default before the registration of the commencement of auction was completed, it is naturally possible to receive dividends even if the plaintiff did not make a request for the issuance, and even if the plaintiff did not submit evidentiary documents on the delinquent tax amount, it is possible to receive dividends within the seizure scope. Therefore, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff should be increased in the amount stated in the claim, and the amount of dividends to the defendants should be reduced in the amount stated in the claim.

B. Determination

1) In case where the registration of seizure by the disposition on default was completed prior to the time when the decision on commencing the auction was made on the real estate, the State, as a matter of course, has the same effect as the demand for distribution under the Civil Procedure Act, even if it does not make a request for delivery under Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act, and in this case, if the State fails to submit evidential documents to calculate the delinquent tax by the successful bid date, the court of auction shall investigate and distribute the delinquent tax pursuant to the relevant written request for attachment registration. In this case, even if there was a report on the delinquent tax amount prior to the successful bid date, the State may submit the corrected evidentiary documents, etc. until the distribution schedule is prepared, and the court of auction may, unless there are any special circumstances, submit the corrected evidentiary documents, etc. until the successful bid date exceeds the reported amount prior to

The amount of delinquent taxes that the State is entitled to receive through the documents and evidence submitted shall be calculated (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11055 Decided January 25, 2002).

2) According to the case of this case, Gap evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2, the attachment registration of real estate was completed prior to the registration of entry at the time of opening an auction, but the reason for arrears of Kims at the time of the registration of attachment by the disposition on default is recognized as 000, while considering Gap evidence 5, the plaintiff submitted a written request for delivery of KRW 000 on March 23, 2012, and the plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence for calculating the amount of tax payment until the date of distribution, and if there is a circumstance that the attachment was not submitted even after the request for delivery on the auction record, the auction court has no choice but to calculate the amount of tax in arrears only based on the written request submitted by the plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the distribution schedule of this case where the plaintiff distributed KRW 000 to the plaintiff accordingly. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.