Tax claims related to the seizure of this case do not fall under the priority tax

Inasmuch as it was impossible to predict that the Plaintiff would be subject to gift tax, national taxes and additional charges imposed on the Plaintiff’s property under the proviso of Article 35(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes are imposed on the Defendant’s tax claim based on the seizure of this case.

In other words, "other than the pertinent tax having priority", [Contents of the judgment]

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Priority of National Taxes]

2019 Ghana 105594 Demurrer

Since the distribution schedule is unlawful, the above distribution schedule is distributed to the plaintiff in full for the defendant.

shall be corrected as such.

3. Determination

A. Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017)

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

on the other hand, the proviso of the same paragraph provides for the principle of priority of national tax, but the following:

The same shall not apply to public charges or other claims falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

subsection (3) of the same subsection shall apply to any of the following dates (hereinafter referred to as "legal time"):

The President who has registered or recorded the establishment of a right of lease on a deposit basis, a pledge or a mortgage before

national taxes or national taxes from the proceeds of sale of the property certified under the Presidential Decree; or

Any additional dues (excluding national taxes and additional dues imposed on the property) shall be collected before the collection.

'Claims secured by taxation rights, pledges, or mortgages', which are prescribed by the law as such.

Recognizing the exception to the principle of preference to national taxes for the mortgages established prior to the due date;

national taxes and Ghana imposed on the property, notwithstanding any exception to the principles of preferential national tax treatment;

It re-approves exceptions to mountain funds.

(b) Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is a transaction in relation to the security rights given by public notice;

appropriate requests for public interest to secure the judicial request to ensure safety and the realization of a taxation claim;

The purpose of the legislation is to harmonize it with others, so that the tax is secured by the security right.

the security interest shall not be infringed upon the essential content of the security interest even if it takes precedence over the claim.

"A part of the property," "a excessive national tax", "a person acquiring a security right by way of security under Article 35 (1) 3 (proviso) of the same Act shall be liable to impose on the property in the future", "a reasonable degree of prediction" and "a person holding a security right by way of security under Article 35 (1)

It should be deemed that only the amount of national taxes imposed by recognizing the tax-bearing capacity is the only amount of national taxes (Supreme Court Decision 3 March 199)

18. See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da23184 Decided 18.

C. According to the above legal provisions and legal principles, the preferential right of the pertinent tax is the holder of the security right.

It should be limited according to the existence of predictability.

With respect to the instant case, the sale of the instant real property in the name of AA from BB

In July 16, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer due to the cause was completed on July 16, 2013, and the establishment of the Plaintiff’s mortgage in this case

The fact that the registration was completed on January 4, 2017 after the lapse of at least three years from that time is as seen earlier.

As above, a security right to real estate, the grounds for registration of which are traded, shall be acquired.

(1) Whether the article was donated to a creditor upon investigation of the relationship between the seller and the buyer

in the name of BB with respect to the instant real property, the title of BB with respect to such real property is not subject to investigation.

There was no seizure, etc. for more than three years after the completion of registration of transfer of ownership.

In light of the above, the real estate of this case at the time the plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case

It seems difficult to expect that gift tax will be imposed on the defendant (the defendant).

The domicile of AA and B was written in Nowon-gu, Seoul ***, a collateral security.

(1) The plaintiff seeking to obtain the agreement between A and B shall be liable to investigate the relationship between A and B and B B from A.

The argument that the gift was received was known, but the above address was all the real estate of this case.

Since such circumstance alone constitutes the domicile of the Plaintiff, the party to the transaction after the lapse of three years.

that the real estate of this case was donated, or that the real estate of this case was donated.

of this section).

Therefore, the Defendant’s tax claim, which served as the basis for the seizure of the instant case, is the root of the instant case.

Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017) in relation to the registration of establishment of a mortgage.

National taxes and additional dues imposed on the property referred to in the proviso of Article 35 (1) 3, and "amount";

In other words, the claims based on the establishment registration of the mortgage of the plaintiff of this case do not constitute the corresponding tax with priority." In conclusion, the claims based on the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case

of this case’s distribution schedule, in so doing, has the status of priority in distribution than that of the claim

50,849,990 won should be corrected to be distributed to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

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

partnership.

00

Korea

July 16, 2019

August 13, 2019

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on January 31, 2019 with respect to the auction case of real estate rent, the amount of 29,782,661 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 80,632,651, and the amount of 50,849,990 won against the defendant shall be corrected to KRW 0,00,00,000,000.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of AA has been completed in relation to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu relay *** (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”), but the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of BB on July 16, 2013.

B. On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) as Seoul** district court** registry receipt**** as the debtor,CC, the maximum debt amount of 91,00,000 won. Meanwhile, on April 1, 2017, the Defendant notified AB of KRW 40,181,760 of the gift tax on the ground that the Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (a), donated the instant real estate to A and subsequently transferred the ownership of the instant real estate, on the ground that the Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (a), sold the instant real estate, but sold it, did not pay the gift tax, and on August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff seized the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “Attachment”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent regarding the instant real estate under Seoul*** district court 2018, around 2018** upon the registration of the establishment of the instant real estate establishment. On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff received a decision to voluntarily commence the auction of real estate from the above court, and on January 2, 2019, D paid the sale price and acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.

E. The above auction court, with the first priority in the distribution procedure of the real estate in this case, prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 431,020 to the defendant, 50,849,990 to the defendant, who is the lessee with the fixed date, as the lessee with the second priority in the distribution procedure of the real estate in this case, and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant, who is the applicant creditor, 29,782,661 to the plaintiff who is the applicant creditor (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule in this case").

F. On January 31, 2019, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the said real estate auction case, and raised an objection against the Defendant regarding the total amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the instant court on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The above auction court determined that the Defendant’s claim on the seizure of this case constitutes the pertinent tax, and thus, it constitutes the prior dividend right holder against the Plaintiff. However, according to the copy of the registry of the real estate of this case, the reason for the registration of transfer of ownership from AA to B was written as a sale, so it was not possible for the Plaintiff, who is the right to collateral security, to expect that the pertinent gift tax shall be imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground that the reason for registration was not the actual sale but the gift, at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s gift tax on the seizure of this case violates the Plaintiff’s predictability and does not fall under the pertinent tax having the priority over the Plaintiff