Demurrer against distribution

There is no evidence that the statutory deadline for each taxation claim that forms the basis for calculating the dividends of a distribution schedule is after the date of establishment of the right to collateral security.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared on July 28, 2005, the distribution court distributed 59,576,007 won to Defendant Red○○, each of the dividends against Defendant’s Republic of Korea (○○ Tax Code KRW 38,406,105, KRW 7,323,740, KRW 19,945,129, respectively, and distributed 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to ○○○○○-gun, ○○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-do, 1071m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”), the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage worth KRW 50,000,000, based on the mortgage-backed contract on the same day on August 3, 202.

B. On May 18, 200, on the instant real estate, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed in the name of the mortgagee, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○, the debtor’s right to create a mortgage, the maximum debt amount of which was 65,00,000 under the name of the debtor, and the establishment registration was completed on July 6, 200 under the name of Red○○, the debtor’s right to create a mortgage, the maximum debt amount of which was 70,000, and the second priority priority priority

C. In the auction procedure of the real estate auction at the court of this case, ○○○○○○○○○, which commenced with respect to the real estate of this case, the distribution court shall set up a distribution schedule of KRW 5,510,00 in the order of July 28, 2005; KRW 62,354,537 in the second order; KRW 59,576,007 in the order of priority; KRW 19,945,129 in the defendant ○○○-si, a person holding the right to deliver the real estate of this case; KRW 45,729,845 ( KRW 38,406,105 in the head of ○○○○ Tax Office + KRW 7,323,740 in the order of priority; and presented to interested parties the distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

D. The Plaintiff raised an objection to the dividend amount against the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of the instant case within seven days.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 4 and 5, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Red○○

The Plaintiff asserted that the second priority collective security obligation on the instant real estate of Defendant Hong○○ was unlawful since the instant distribution schedule was prepared as follows: (a) the Defendant Red○○○○’s secured obligation on the leased debt on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s obligation on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s debt on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○, and that Defendant Red○○○ was unlawful; and (b) there was no evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant ○○-si ○○○○○.

Although the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is no tax claim against Defendant Republic of Korea and ○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the Plaintiff.

Next, the plaintiff asserts that the statutory due date of the above defendants' tax claims should be distributed prior to August 3, 2002, which is the date of establishing the plaintiff's right to collateral security. Thus, there is no evidence that the statutory due date of each of the above defendants' respective tax claims, which is the basis for calculating the dividend of the dividend table of this case, is subsequent to the plaintiff's assertion that the statutory due date of the above defendants' respective tax claims is after the date of establishing the plaintiff's right to collateral security. Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in each of the statements as set forth in No. 8-13, 15, 16, and 18, the facts can be acknowledged that all of the claims of the above defendants, which are the basis for calculating the dividend amount, reach the statutory due date prior to August 3, 2002. Therefore, the plaintiff'

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.