Considering the detailed statement of document production, etc., it is legitimate to distribute it to the tax office as having requested delivery prior to the completion date for demanding a distribution in the auction procedure.

According to the production specifications, civil application and fact-finding, it is reasonable to view that the tax office requested the delivery prior to the completion period for demanding the distribution of the instant light procedure.

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 grouped 207756 Demurrer against distribution

Korea

SAAAA Corporation

March 29, 2016

May 03, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. Purport of claim

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 00, 2015, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 00,000,000 for the compulsory auction cases of real estate 00 branch court 00,000 for the defendant, and KRW 00,000,000 for the plaintiff shall be respectively changed to KRW 00,00 for the amount of dividends to the defendant, and KRW 00,000 for the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

“A. The instant real estate was sold on October 0, 2015 after a compulsory auction was commenced on October 0, 2014 with regard to the Busan 00-Gu 00-dong 00000 000 000 Do-dong 000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on October 0, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of seizure following the default of value-added tax on October 00, 197, and on October 00, 1997, the Plaintiff demanded a distribution in the instant auction as a creditor of two BB who is the owner of the instant real estate.

C. On the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure opened on October 00, 2015, the Defendant received 00,000,000 won as the secondary seizure authority, and the Plaintiff received a dividend of KRW 00,00,000 as the person having the right to demand a distribution, as the person having the right to demand a distribution of KRW 4.

D. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the Defendant’s dividend amount and filed the instant lawsuit before seven days elapse thereafter.

【Matters without dispute over recognition, entry in the evidence A to 5, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff completed the registration of seizure of the instant real estate on October 0, 1997, but thereafter, there was no demand for delivery or demand for distribution until October 00, 2015, which is the end date of the instant auction procedure. The Plaintiff filed a request for delivery on October 00, 2015. According to the written request for delivery submitted by the Defendant, the amount of KRW 00,000,000, including the delinquent taxes and additional charges after October 00, 1997, which was issued by the Defendant’s disposition of seizure. However, the tax claim subject to the registration of seizure due to the default may receive the delinquent tax and additional charges after the date of the seizure disposition, and if not, the amount of delinquent tax and additional charges may not be distributed after the date of the seizure disposition, even if the Defendant requested the delivery after the completion date of the seizure disposition, the auction court, even though the Defendant requested the delivery of the amount of delinquent tax and additional charges after the date of the seizure disposition, is unjust.

3. Determination

As to whether the Defendant made a request for delivery after October 00, 2015, a type of demand for distribution of the auction procedure of this case, the Defendant stated that the Defendant submitted a request for delivery on October 00, 2015. However, the aforementioned evidence and the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 7, 00, 00, and 1 to 00, as a whole, can be considered in light of the overall purport of pleadings. In other words, according to the document production statement kept by the Defendant, the Defendant prepared a request for delivery on the two BB, the owner of the real estate of this case, on October 0, 2014, and the employees of the branch court of the district court of 00,000, issued a request for delivery to the above 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant made a request for delivery after the end of the period for demand for distribution is without merit (it is not possible to regard the auction real estate as having the effect of the request for delivery in cases where the seizure is registered as a procedure for the disposition of national tax in arrears (Supreme Court Decision 93Da19276 delivered on March 2, 1994). Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the defendant received illegal dividends.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's right to claim the collection of national taxes has expired five years before the defendant's request for delivery was received on November 00, 2014. However, as seen earlier, the defendant issued a seizure disposition following the delinquency in payment of value-added tax on July 0, 1997, and completed the seizure registration on the real estate of this case on July 0, 1997. Thus, the vindication of the right to claim the collection of national taxes was suspended at that time. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.