Where the head of a tax office newly established after the separate opening office fails to register the change of the seizure authority, and the request for issuance is omitted, there is no substantive defect in the sale price.

The head of a tax office newly established due to the separate establishment of the tax office shall change the name of the seizure authority prior to the separate establishment of the tax office, and the fact that the request for issuance was omitted by the separate establishment of the tax office at the time of the public auction alone cannot be deemed as a substantive defect

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 5247707 Fraudulent Gains

Korea

AA Gu and four others

March 23, 2017

April 13, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place and place of action

Defendant AA-gu shall pay to the Plaintiff 721,080 won, Defendant BB-si 28,603,320 won, DefendantCC 199,290 won, Defendant D-gu 101,970 won, Defendant EEEEE-si 78,583,249 won, and 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (A) completed the attachment registration on June 27, 2013 and August 27, 2013 for the collection of the amount of national taxes in arrears against 00,000,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 0000, which is owned by 00, for the purpose of collecting the amount of national taxes in arrears against 00, and thereafter, the Plaintiff (A) completed the attachment registration on August 27, 2013.

B. On February 19, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s application for public auction with respect to the above apartment, the Korea 000 Corporation started the public auction procedure after completing the registration of the public auction on February 19, 2015, notified the Plaintiff (the National Tax Service) of the public auction agency and the public auction to the end of April 4, 2016. The Plaintiff (Tax Office) finally submitted a request for delivery of the amount of KRW 75,082,460, national taxes, etc. during the public auction procedure.

다. 한국0000공사는 2016. 8. 4.자로 위 공매에 따른 배분할 금액 431,421,150원을 1순위 집행비용으로 13,844,890원, 2순위 PP구에 300,590원, 3순위 OO은행(근저당권자)에 46,982,214원, 4순위 이QQ(임차인)에 180,000,000원, 5순위 원고(갑세무서)에 75,082,460원, 6순위 피고 AA구에 354,630원, 같은 6순위 피고 BBBB시(피고 AA구 이관분)에 28,715,380원, 7순위 피고 CC구에 245,640원, 같은 7순위 피고 DD구에 139,050원, 8순위 피고 EEEEEE공단에 78,612,810원, 9순위 피고 AA구에 412,800원, 10순위 민00(소유자)에 6,730,686원으로 배당하는 배분계산서를 작성하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that, by omitting the notification of the request for delivery (public sale) to the tax secretary, the Korea00 Corporation did not demand the distribution of the national tax in arrears by omitting the notification of the request for delivery (public sale) while proceeding with the above public sale procedure, the Plaintiff failed to receive the distribution despite being the senior seizure authority. In the above public sale procedure, the Plaintiff (Tax secretary) sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount received by the Plaintiff (Tax secretary) out of the dividend amount to the Defendants.

However, in principle, a person whose right to receive dividends has been infringed on by a distribution based on the distribution schedule based on the substantive defect may raise an objection on the date of distribution, and raise a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and have the right to receive a remedy. Even if the distribution schedule became final and conclusive by failing to raise an objection by attending the date of domestic distribution, the distribution schedule pursuant to the established distribution schedule is not final and conclusive under the substantive law, and thus, a lawsuit for a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment may be brought. However, if the distribution schedule is duly prepared and the distribution schedule itself does not have any substantive defect, it shall not be deemed that there is no legal ground for the payment of the amount of dividends pursuant to the established distribution schedule. In an auction procedure for the enforcement of a security right, the creditor of the request for auction may not extend the amount of claims stated in the application for the auction by submission of the claim statement, but may submit the claim statement that reduced the amount of claims until the distribution schedule is prepared. In such cases, the distribution court can only distribute the amount of claims based on the reduced amount of claims on the claim statement, and the distribution schedule cannot be distributed more than the amount of claims (see, 201.

In full view of the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff who received the notice of public auction in the above public auction procedure can finally claim the delivery of KRW 75,082,460 to the plaintiff, and thus, the amount of dividends against the plaintiff can be known. On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim for payment of part of national taxes in arrears was omitted due to non- cooperation in the business of the tax office and the tax office, which is merely the disposition authority of the plaintiff's competent authority, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a substantive defect in

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.