Until the period for demand for distribution, only the amount requested to be distributed may be distributed.

Even by the revised request of the country after the successful bid date, the priority dividend can be claimed, but the scope of the claim entitled to such priority dividend shall be limited to the claim amount in the registration of seizure.

Article 88 of the Civil Execution Act

2016 Gohap2898 Demurrer against distribution

The second registration of seizure was completed.

B. Voluntary auction of the instant real estate, Plaintiff’s request for delivery, and distribution procedure

1) The instant real estate and the instant case upon application by the Industrial Bank of Korea as the mortgagee of the instant real estate

On October 16, 2015, △△△ District Court 2015 Mo○○○5 decided October 16, 2015

The registration date on the same day shall be entered after the commencement of the auction of real estate (hereinafter referred to as "auction of this case")

The execution court designated the type of demand for distribution on December 29, 2015.

2) Around December 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around December 7, 2015, the delinquent taxpayer corporation, the corporate tax, the value-added tax

"○○○, ○○, ○○○○, and the sum of wage and salary income tax, education (defense) tax, and additional charges for special rural development tax.

By the date of distribution, a request for the issuance of increased additional charges to be added monthly to the date of distribution was made (hereinafter referred to as "the first case").

Request for delivery (hereinafter referred to as "request for delivery")

3) After that, the Defendant around May 16, 2016, which was after the end of the period for demanding distribution, shall be the person who has defaulted on his/her duty to file a claim.

Total income tax, value-added tax, capital gains tax, securities transaction tax and special rural development tax;

A request for issuance to an increased amount monthly which may be added up until the date of distribution, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, and the date of distribution.

The second request for delivery of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the second request for delivery of this case").

4) On May 31, 2016, a court of execution grants a sale permit with the proceeds of sale as KRW 0,00,00,000,000,000.

The provisional decision was made and the date of distribution was notified on August 11, 2016.

5) On July 14, 2016, the Defendant added △△△ to the delinquent taxpayer of the instant secondary request for delivery on July 14, 2016.

The claim amount was equally claimed (hereinafter referred to as "the third claim for delivery of this case").

6) On August 11, 2016, a court of execution shall have the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○.

○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, a second-class person who is a seizure authority, shall be a second-class person.

The third priority is the ○○○○○, the ○○○, the ○○○○○, the ○○○○, and the 4th priority as the seizure authority.

A lawsuit was filed.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, and described in Gap 1 through 8 (if there is a tentative number, the tentative number);

(including title), the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 88 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply to a person who has a right to register seizure under a disposition on default registered prior to the registration of the first

Since the demand for distribution under paragraph (1) does not constitute a creditor demanding a distribution, the kind of demand for distribution shall not be made.

Since it is possible for the Plaintiff to add and expand claims even after the date, the Plaintiff’s second and third delivery of this case

The amount of delinquent taxes in arrears is recognized as the amount of credit, together with the tax claims registered as the first seizure.

○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○, all of which are subordinate creditors, shall be revoked, and this shall be revoked.

dividend to the plaintiff must be corrected.

3. Judgment on the main safety defense in Defendant ○○○ and △△△ City

As to the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case filed by the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○, the Plaintiff’s grounds for objection

The court of execution did not recognize the taxation claims requested by the plaintiff, and prepared the distribution schedule.

That is, it can only constitute a ground for objection to the enforcement method, which is a ground for objection to a distribution.

As such, the Defendant △△ City asserts that it is unlawful, and Defendant △△ City has the completion date of demand for distribution ( December 29, 2015).

On December 1, 2015, the transferor filed a claim for the delivery of local tax delinquent bonds at △△ City.

Accordingly, the defendant was legally distributed by a court of execution by applying Article 99 of the Framework Act on Local Tax.

Since there is no illegality or defect in the dividend amount of △△ City, this case is denied.

A lawsuit asserts to the effect that it is unlawful.

A creditor who has appeared on the date of distribution under Article 151(3) of the Civil Execution Act shall have his/her interest.

such claims or claims by such creditors or by order of such claims.

The execution court may raise an objection to the plaintiff's assertion in Paragraph 2 above. The execution court's assertion in Paragraph 2 above

With the assertion that the plaintiff's taxation claim was not illegally recognized, the case is in accordance with the law.

Since the effect of the registration of the first seizure is limited to the subsequent taxation claims, the second and third issuance in this case shall be made.

The Plaintiff’s taxation claim also includes the Plaintiff’s taxation claim registered with the primary seizure of this case in preference to the Defendants’ claims.

It is clear that there is an assertion that dividends should be distributed in the order of priority such as the right.

Therefore, although the defendants' claims exist, they asserted that the dividend order is subordinate to the plaintiff.

Since the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case was filed as a legitimate ground, the above Defendants

All defenses are without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. Relevant legal principles

(1) a creditor who has an executory exemplification, who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of the decision to commence the auction;

The creditor who has the right to preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts shall be entitled to the completion of the demand for distribution.

only when a demand for distribution has been made, a distribution may be made and lawful demand for distribution shall be made.

in the case of failure, even if the creditor has the right to preferential reimbursement under substantive law, the proceeds of sale

no distribution shall be received from the person who has demand for distribution to the final period for the demand for distribution.

In cases where a demand for partial distribution has been made only, the demand for distribution shall not be made after the completion of the demand for distribution.

No claim may be added or expanded, and this interest shall be paid on a claim which has not been additionally demanded for distribution.

This also applies to incidental claims, such as a request for auction or a demand for distribution.

If the purport of seeking payment, such as the interest up to the date of distribution, is stated in the submitted demand for distribution

Such legal principle is applicable to a request for a delivery under a taxation claim. The same legal principle

As a taxation claim is subject to the former Local Tax Act (Law No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010).

Amended by Act No. 31(1) and (2)(3), regardless of the statutory date;

Even if it is related to the pertinent rent taking precedence over the right to collateral security, the request for delivery until the period of demand for distribution.

only the amount of the incidental tax on the corresponding tax can be distributed, and the additional tax as a kind of incidental tax on the tax; and

In the case of increased additional charges, additional charges or increased additional charges shall be included from the request for delivery to the date of distribution.

(2) If the purport of seeking a payment was not clearly disclosed before the end of the demand for distribution, the class period for demand for distribution

Distribution may be made only to the amount demanded to be delivered up to the limit of the amount requested.

Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act shall have effect on the attachment of real estate conducted by the head of a tax office.

Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the ownership shall also extend to the arrears of the national taxes the statutory due date of which comes due under the provisions of Article 35(1).

In case of the same person's failure to pay taxes after the registration of seizure

It is a matter of course that the seizure is effective without the need to obtain the registration of seizure, and by seizure.

It does not recognize a special priority of national tax claim that occurs thereafter.

In addition, the validity of the request for delivery of the whole amount of delinquent tax accrued until the date of distribution after seizure.

This does not mean that the date of sale after the seizure due to the disposition of national tax in arrears is not recognized.

the court of execution shall, if a separate request for delivery or a document evidencing the amount of tax is not submitted

on the record of execution, the amount of tax in arrears recognized by the written request for the attachment

Although the amount of dividends is distributed, the actual arrears at the time of seizure of the tax claim that is the cause of the seizure disposition.

If the amount exceeds the amount, the excess amount shall be subject to an objection against the distribution by a junior dividend holder.

In the case of other tax claims that are effective by the disposition on default, the dividends

Unless the request for delivery is made by the closing date of the request, subordinated dividends with the tax claim in arrears;

No person holding a right may receive dividends preferentially (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da44160 Decided May 10, 2012, etc.)

[Reference]

2) The registration of seizure based on the disposition on default was completed prior to the registration of the commencement of auction on real estate.

In case of a request for delivery under Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act, the State shall automatically do so even if it does not request;

The same effect as the demand for distribution under the Civil Procedure Act takes effect by registration, and in this case the State award.

(1) If a document evidencing that the amount of delinquent taxes can be calculated is not submitted by the deadline, the court of auction

As such, the amount of delinquent tax pursuant to the registration request shall be distributed after investigating the amount of delinquent tax pursuant to the registration request.

in the same case, even if there was a report of tax in arrears before the successful bid date, that country shall

Then, until the distribution schedule is prepared, evidentiary documents, etc. corrected may be submitted again.

The court of auction shall, unless there are special circumstances, exceed the reported amount prior to the date of the award.

for such amount, within the scope of the claim amount under the above seizure registration, the time of the preparation of the distribution schedule

The amount of delinquent taxes that the State is entitled to receive shall be calculated based on documents, evidence, etc. submitted.

may claim the preferential dividend even by the request of the country for the correction and delivery after the award date.

B. The scope of the claims entitled to preferential dividends is limited to the claims in the registration of seizure.

It should be viewed as follows (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11055, Jan. 25, 2002).

B. Determination

Before the plaintiff's demand for distribution of the auction of this case, after the first demand for delivery of this case and after the completion of demand for distribution

The facts of the request for delivery 2 and 3 of this case are as seen earlier, and each of the evidence and arguments mentioned above are examined.

According to the purport of the whole, the execution court's letter of request for the registration of seizure of June 18, 1994 at the time of seizure.

Only dividends may be distributed for the amount in arrears as stated and the subsequent amount in arrears shall not be paid.

The Plaintiff distributed ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○, as a second priority seizure authority, to the Plaintiff on the ground that it was found that the Plaintiff

may be recognized.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff requested issuance in the auction procedure of this case.

The first seizure registration date of this case is within the scope of the claim amount of the first seizure registration of this case among the delinquent tax amount

On June 18, 1994, after the end of the period, only the amount in arrears can be paid preferentially, and the amount in excess may be paid preferentially.

Even for other tax claims that have the effect of seizure due to a disposition on default, a demand for distribution

Unless a request for delivery is made by the deadline for the completion of the contract, junior dividends shall be made with the tax claim in arrears.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it cannot be paid preferentially to others.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Korea

○○ et al. 3

△△△△, ○○○, ○○○○○, and a person entitled to receive a delivery, the 5th priority Industrial Complex.

(Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City, its branch office) The defendant corporation with the six highest priority as the mortgagee, ○○, ○○, and ○○.

○○○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○ (the amount of credit, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, and the maximum debt amount)

Each dividend was paid to ○○, ○○, and ○○○○.

C. The plaintiff's objection to distribution

The Plaintiff appears on the date of distribution on August 11, 2016, and the sum of the dividend amounts to the Defendants.

An objection to ○○○, ○○, and ○○○○○○, and an objection to ○○○○○○, and one week thereafter, on August 18, 2016.

March 15, 2017

March 29, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on August 11, 2016 with respect to the former △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○○, and the auction of the real estate at around 2015, the distribution of the Defendants shall be revoked, and the amount of the dividend against the Plaintiff shall be corrected to ○○○,○○, and○○○○○○.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration of seizure by the plaintiff and change of ownership of real estate;

1) The Do○○○○○○-dong, Busan, and ○○○○-dong, 00 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/2 shares on December 24, 1987. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/2 shares on June 18, 1994, and released the attachment on November 12, 1999 (hereinafter “the instant first attachment registration”).

2) On the other hand, the instant real estate was Park Jong-gu on the ground of the reservation to return the substitute on February 21, 1997.

On October 21, 1997, the provisional registration for the transfer of the co-owner's share in the name was completed. However, on January 13, 2004, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a stock company, completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration on April 30, 2005, on the ground of the return of the above security right (the substitute on April 27, 2005, after being transferred the said security right from Park Jong-ri).

3) On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff’s registration of seizure based on the disposition on default on the instant real estate (hereinafter “registration”).