National taxes, surcharges, or expenses for disposition on default may be collected in preference to other public charges or claims.

National taxes, surcharges, or expenses for disposition on default may be collected in preference to other public charges or claims.

Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012 Gohap 19800 Demurrer against distribution

AA Telecommunications Corporation

1.B Life Insurance Co., Ltd. 2.SCC 3. Republic of Korea

October 29, 2013

November 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purpose of claim is to change the dividend amount amount for Defendant BB life insurance companies, dividend amount for Defendant ECC, dividend amount for Defendant Korea, dividend amount for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A Communications Corporation, dividend amount for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as OOOOO, dividend amount for the Appointed as OOOOOO, dividend amount for the Selection KimD, dividend amount for the SelectionD as OOOOOO, dividend amount for the SelectionE, dividend amount for the Selected KimD as OOOOO, dividend amount for the Appoint FOOO, dividend amount for the AppointE as OOO, dividend amount for the Appoint FOOO, dividend amount for the Selected Kim F., respectively among the dividend amount prepared by the above court on December 7, 2012.

Preliminary Claim: On the distribution schedule prepared on December 7, 2012 by the above court with respect to the auction case of real estate rent in Seoul Eastern District Court 2010ta, the defendant BB Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the juryCC, and the Republic of Korea with respect to each dividend payment, the defendant BB Life Insurance Co., Ltd, the defendant BB Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the designated party, the plaintiff AB Communications Co., Ltd., and the Republic of Korea (designated party) transferred all of them to the designated party KimD, and notify the Republic of Korea of the above assignment to the public official in charge of the cash other than the court revenue and expenditure

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2001, thisG created the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage 1”) with respect to the instant real estate on October 11, 2007, on which Defendant BB Life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant BB Life”) established the maximum debt amount OOO, the debtor Lee GG, and the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage 1”) with respect to the instant real estate on October 11, 2007.

B. After that, on November 16, 2007, this GG created an additional registration of the two preceding mortgages (hereinafter referred to as the “second preceding supplementary registration”) on the ground of the transfer on August 6, 2008 to the Defendant JeonnCC on the ground of OOO, the debtor Lee GG, and the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “second additional registration”) with the maximum debt amount in the future OO, the debtor Lee GG, and the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “second additional registration”).

C. In addition, on August 7, 2008, thisG created a maximum amount of claims OOOO, debtor interestG, and mortgagee NaE with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant 3rd mortgage”). Meanwhile, on August 27, 2009, the Defendant Republic of Korea attached the NaE’s claim against EE with respect to the instant 3rd mortgage (hereinafter “instant attachment”) in order to preserve national tax claims in arrears by NaE, and on September 2, 2009, the instant attachment of the above 3rd mortgage claim was established on September 2, 2009.

D. Meanwhile, on April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) AA Telecommunication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed an application for a payment order against NAE seeking payment of OOOO payments, such as promissory notes, with the Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea28658, and the payment order was issued on May 9, 2012, and on May 11, 2012, the said payment order became final and conclusive as it was (hereinafter “instant 1 payment order”) on the grounds that NAE did not raise an objection (hereinafter “the instant order”).

E. In addition, on July 2, 2012, the Selection KimD applied for a payment order against NaE and HH architect office as Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 tea46823, and the payment order was issued on July 17, 2012. The above payment order was finalized on July 18, 2012 as it became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant 2 payment order”).

F. Meanwhile, on June 20, 2012, the SelectionE and KimF filed a lawsuit against thisG on the instant real estate by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Da34949, which claimed the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on November 16, 2007, and thisGG did not submit a written reply within 30 days even if it was served with the copy of the said written complaint, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting the NaE and KimF’s claim on August 27, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

G. On October 1, 2010, Defendant GreenCC, a mortgagee, filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate on the same month. Accordingly, on the 4th day of Seoul Eastern District Court 2010tado14104 (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction procedure”), the instant real estate was sold to OOE. The instant court, on December 7, 2012, prepared the distribution schedule under which each of the Defendant, the right to seize the instant real estate, distributes the amount to be actually distributed from the date of distribution (hereinafter “the instant distribution date”), among OOOE on the distribution date of December 7, 2012, in the first priority of the amount to be actually distributed to the Defendant BB, the mortgagee, and OOCC, the right to seize, in the second priority of the amount to be distributed to OCC, the right to seize OOOE, and in the third priority of the amount to be distributed to OOOOE, the right to seize 4th day of the attachment.

H. Meanwhile, on November 2012, the Plaintiff Company issued a seizure and collection order on November 29, 2012 by Seoul Southern District Court 2012TTTBT 22763 on the basis of the instant order of payment on the ground of the instant order of payment on November 201, 2012, with respect to the dividend payment claim against the Defendant to be designated EE in the voluntary auction procedure of this case, and received the seizure and collection order from the above court. The above seizure and collection order were delivered to the Republic of Korea at that time (hereinafter “instant order of seizure and collection”). In addition, on the basis of the instant order of payment on the ground of the instant order of payment on the ground of the foregoing case 2, Seoul Southern District Court 2012TTTT 22762, the Plaintiff Company received the seizure and collection order of the dividend payment claim against the Defendant to be designated E in the voluntary auction procedure of this case, and the Defendant and the above collection order of this case reached the court’s order of seizure and seizure (hereinafter “the above collection order of this case”).

(j) The Plaintiff Company’s in-house director KimD, SelectionE, KimF, and KimD (hereinafter “Plaintiff et al.”) filed the instant lawsuit after raising an objection against the dividend amount against the Defendants among the instant distribution schedule on the date of distribution as the person entitled to demand distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11 through 14, 20 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the primary and conjunctive claim against Defendant PCC

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff et al. asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should not be distributed to the defendant juryCC due to the following reasons, and that the same should be corrected as the entries in the primary claim, or that the assignment of claims and the notification of the assignment of claims should be made, such as the entries in the preliminary claim.

① Although there was no transfer of the secured debt of the instant 2-mortgage to Defendant PCC, Defendant PCC made a false supplementary registration with respect to the instant transfer registration.

② In addition, since NaE, the transferor, notified NaE, the debtor, of the fact of transferring the assignment, the defendant juryCC did not meet the requisite for setting up against the assignment of the assignment.

③ The underlying claim in the supplementary registration prior to the instant transfer is a promissory note claim, and its extinctive prescription has expired as at the date of the instant distribution.

B. Determination

(1) As to the allegation No. 1

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the following facts are as follows: (a) Defendant PCC transferred OO and OOOOOO to E on August 7, 2008, which is the day following the supplementary registration before the present case; (b) Defendant POE and the certificate of transfer of the bonds and the right to collateral security made between the Selection E and Defendant PCC on August 6, 2008, stated that “E transfer of the bonds and the right to collateral security agreement of this case to Defendant POE along with the right to collateral security of this case to Defendant POE,” and the transferor column affixed the seal impression of NAE and this portion of this case’s 2nd priority on August 6, 2008, the court’s allegation that this case’s 2nd priority of this case’s 2nd priority on the ground that this case’s new judgment against Defendant POE was not legitimate in this case’s assertion that this case’s new judgment against Defendant PO2 and other part of this case’s claim.

(2) As to the above ② argument

In light of the above, even if Defendant 1CC did not meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims as alleged by the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, the secured claim of the instant 2-mortgage is deemed to have been legally transferred between the designated transferor NaE and Defendant 1CC, which is the transferor NaE, and the third party who can be challenged by failing to meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims refers to a person who has the legal status that is incompatible with the assignee's status as to the claim. Even according to the Plaintiff's assertion itself, the Plaintiff et al.'s creditors or creditors against the designated party or those who did not undergo the procedure for acquiring the claim is the real owner of the instant real estate. Thus, it cannot be deemed to be a person who has the legal status that cannot be compatible with the assignee as to the secured claim of the instant 2-mortgage mortgage. Accordingly, this part of the assertion by the Plaintiff, etc. on different premise is without merit.

(3) As to the above third argument

In addition, the fact that the due date for the payment of a promissory note, which is the cause claim for the supplementary registration prior to the date of this case, was August 6, 2008, is no dispute between the parties, and that the period of the payment of the promissory note was three years after December 7, 2012, which is the date of the distribution of this case. However, it is apparent that the period of the payment was three years since the date of the distribution of this case, but the fact that the defendant juryCC applied for the voluntary auction on the real estate of this case on October 1, 2010, which is the date prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, based on the supplementary registration prior to the expiration of the period of the statute of limitations, and that the auction procedure of this case was commenced on October 4, 2010, the above statute of limitations

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the primary and conjunctive claims against Defendant PCC by the Plaintiff et al. are without merit.

3. Determination as to the primary and conjunctive claim against Defendant BB bio-resources

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff et al. asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should not be distributed to the defendant BB bio-resources for the following reasons, and that the distribution schedule of this case should be corrected as stated in the main claim or must be notified of the assignment of claims and the assignment of claims as stated in the preliminary claim.

① The GG fully repaid Defendant BB life the secured debt of the instant 1-mortgage.

② The claim secured by the right to collateral security was already completed at the time of the date of distribution of the instant case.

B. Determination

(1) As to the allegation No. 1

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 3, this part of the argument by the Plaintiff, etc. is without merit, since thisG used the loan from Defendant BB life on October 11, 2007 due date of payment on October 11, 2012, interest rate of 7% per annum, and delay compensation rate of 19% per annum. This GG created the instant collateral security right to the instant real estate in the future of Defendant BB life in order to secure the above loan obligation. The fact that thisG created the instant real estate in the name of Defendant BB life, and the principal and interest obligation of thisG to Defendant BB life amount to KRW OB won on November 9, 2012 can be recognized. On the contrary, this part of the argument by the Plaintiff, etc. is without merit.

(2) As to the above ② argument

On October 12, 2007, this GG borrowed OE from Defendant BB life at the maturity date of October 11, 2012, interest rate of 7% per annum, and 19% per annum. As seen earlier, this GG created the instant 1-mortgage on the instant real estate in the future of Defendant BB life in order to secure the said loan obligation. The said loan claim is deemed to have been subject to the five-year extinctive prescription as a commercial claim. The fact that five years have not elapsed since October 11, 2012, which was the maturity date of the said loan claim as of December 7, 2012, which was the date of payment of the said loan claim, is apparent in fact, and therefore, this part of the claim by the Plaintiff, etc. on a different premise is without merit.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendant BB bio-resources are without merit.

4. Judgment on the main and ancillary claims against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff et al. asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should not be distributed to the defendant Republic of Korea for the following reasons, and that the assignment of claims and the notification thereof should be made, as stated in the primary purport of the claim, or as stated in the preliminary purport of the claim.

① Around August 6, 2008, the Lessee was issued and delivered a promissory note (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”) at par value OOO and issuer Lee GG while lending OOOOOO to thisG. However, on the same day, the Plaintiff was ordered to transfer the Promissory note in this case to the Plaintiff Company by endorsement, so the seizure of this case’s 3-mortgage in this case’s Republic of Korea does not affect the Plaintiff Company, and even if not, the effect of the seizure of this case’s 3-mortgage in this case’s Republic of Korea does not extend to the Plaintiff Company, the secured claim of this case’s 3-mortgage in this case’s 3-mortgage in this case was a promissory note, and the extinctive prescription thereof was expired at the time of the date of distribution.

② Before the instant seizure was issued, the Plaintiff Company and the Selected KimD’s claims against the NaE, and the Plaintiff Company and the Selected KimD received each of the instant claims seizure and collection order against the Defendant’s dividends against the Defendant’s Republic of Korea that the NaE would be received during the instant voluntary auction procedure. As such, the claims of the Plaintiff Company and the Selection KimD were superior to those of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea.

③ The Defendant Republic of Korea did not notify the Appointer NaE of the rectification of national taxes, which served as the basis of the instant seizure, and the Defendant Republic of Korea did not have determined national taxes on the Defendant Republic of Korea. Therefore, the Defendant Republic of Korea did not acquire the right to collect.

④ As the amount of the instant seized claim is greater than the amount of the national tax claim against the designated parties NaE of the Republic of Korea, the seizure of this case is null and void.

⑤ The liability to pay national taxes to the Defendant NaE is the secondary liability to pay taxes under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Since the chief of a tax office did not give notice of payment under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, the obligation to pay national taxes to NaE was not finalized.

B. Determination

(1) As to the allegation No. 1

On August 6, 2008, this case’s promissory note issued by the obligor is presumed to have been received for the payment of the underlying claim or for the payment of the loan’s credit. Since the promissory note also issued by the obligor is presumed to have been issued for the payment of or as security for the payment of the above loan’s credit, there is no dispute between the parties and parties, and this GG created the instant promissory note, which is the issuer’s interest, as of August 7, 2008, with respect to the real property of this case on August 7, 2008, the designated obligor, the obligor, the obligor, the obligor, the right to collateral security, and the right to collateral security, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the secured claim of this case was transferred to the Plaintiff, etc., the right to collateral security of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case.

(2) As to the above ② argument

On November 2012, the Plaintiff Company received the instant order of seizure and collection against the Defendant’s dividends against the Republic of Korea by the Seoul Southern District Court 2012TBT 22763 based on the instant order of payment on November 201, 2012. The Appointed KimD received the instant order of seizure and collection against the Defendant’s dividends against the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, which would be subject to the instant order of voluntary auction. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant Company received the instant order of seizure and collection from the Seoul Southern District Court 2012TTT 22762 based on the instant order of payment on the instant order of payment. However, since the national tax, additional dues, or disposition of arrears can be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims (see Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), Defendant Republic of Korea did not have any further priority over the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant’s dividends against the Plaintiff and the instant order of collection.

(3) As to the above third argument

On August 27, 2009, the defendant Republic of Korea seized the case in order to preserve the national tax claims in arrears by the designated parties NaE on August 27, 2009, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Eul's evidence No. 2, the defendant Republic of Korea determined OOOOO as total amount of global income tax from October 1, 2004 to 2007 on November 30, 2009 and issued a correction notice (hereinafter "the correction notice of this case"). Accordingly, the defendant Republic of Korea acquired the right to collect the claims in this case by issuing the correction notice against GaE on October 1, 2009. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff et al.'s assertion on other premise is without merit.

(4) As to the above argument

On October 1, 2009, the defendant Republic of Korea set OOOO on November 30, 2009, total amount of global income tax from 2004 to 2007, and notified the correction of this case. The fact that the maximum debt amount of the three-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed mortgage-backed claim of this case, which is the claim subject to the seizure of this case, is the cause of OOOOOOOO. As seen earlier, the seizure of this case was conducted within the limit of the amount of national tax claim against the AppointE. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s assertion on other premise is without merit.

(5) As to the above argument

On October 1, 2009, Defendant Republic of Korea determined OOOO on November 30, 2009 as the payment deadline of the global income tax from 2004 to 2007 and issued the instant correction notice. As seen earlier, the SelectionE is the original taxpayer who is not the secondary taxpayer of the global income tax. Thus, this part of the claim by the Plaintiff, etc. on a different premise is without merit.

(6) Sub-determination

Therefore, the main and ancillary claims of the plaintiff et al. against the defendant in Korea are without merit.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are without merit.

Each decision shall be made as per Disposition.