Whether the contents of an objection to a distribution take precedence over national taxes

The substantial representative of the company can recognize the fact that the company's summary indictment was filed on the ground that the company had been in arrears with the wage and retirement pay of this case and was subject to criminal punishment of a fine of two million won or more, and that it was difficult for the company to take over and manage management rights, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the company paid the

Article 35 (Priority of National Taxes)

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

With respect to the distribution procedure case of Chuncheon District Court 2005 Taga450, the dividend amount against the Defendants among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on September 22, 2005, shall be deleted, and the dividend amount against the Plaintiff shall be corrected to 50,396,532 won.

1. Basic facts

A. The ○○ Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Industry”) had a claim for the construction cost of KRW 96,882,692 against Nonparty ○○ Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○”). However, the Plaintiff seized the above claim for the construction cost of KRW 245,036,450 on the ○ Industry based on the tax claim of KRW 245,036,450 on the ○ Industry. Workers of the ○ Industry including the Defendants attached the above claim for the construction cost of KRW 245,00 on the ○ Industry based on the wage and retirement claim for the ○○ Industries (hereinafter “instant wage and retirement claim”). The aforementioned claim was provisionally attached to the ○○ Industry’s employees, based on the wage and retirement claim for the ○○ Industries’s ○○ Industries, and the said construction cost was deposited in the said ○

B. On February 3, 2005, employees of the ○○ Industries including the Defendants filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the ○○ District Court on March 1, 2005 upon receipt of the payment order for the instant wage and retirement allowance claim, which became final and conclusive on March 1, 2005. Accordingly, the ○○ District Court 2005ta-450, which commenced the above claim for construction payment for the ○○○○○○ Industries on September 22, 2005, the execution court prepared a distribution schedule in order to distribute the amount of KRW 93,948,112, which is the instant wage and retirement allowance, to the employees of the ○ Industries including the Defendants, in the first order, to the employees of the ○○ Industries including the Defendants, and to distribute the remaining amount of KRW 2,834,820, which is the remainder to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendants and the employees of the ○○ Industry regarding KRW 93,948,112, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendants on September 29, 2005, within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 4 (including additional number), the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the ○ industry has already paid the wage and retirement benefits of this case according to the data prepared and submitted by the ○ industry to the head of ○○ Tax Office. Thus, it is erroneous that the court of execution paid the defendants the wage and retirement benefits of this case. The defendants asserted that the defendants did not receive the wage and retirement benefits of this case from the ○ industry, so it is justifiable that the defendants distributed the wages to the defendants.

B. Determination

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including each number), it can be acknowledged that ○○ Industry was indicted for the delayed payment of the wage and retirement pay of this case to its employees including the defendants, by preparing a report on performance of withholding taxes, corporate tax base and tax return, a tax withholding receipt for wage and salary income, and submitting it to the head of ○○ Tax Office as if the ○○ Industry paid the above wage and retirement pay of this case. Meanwhile, considering Eul evidence Nos. 3, B, and 1 through 3, and 7 (including each number) as a result of the examination of the defendant ○○, a substantial representative of the ○○ industry, was indicted for the reason that the defendant ○○○ Industry was in arrears with the wage and retirement pay of this case, and it was difficult to recognize that the above ○○ Industries was out of 2,004, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the above ○○ Industries was out of 2,004, and there was no other evidence to recognize that the above ○○○ Industries was out of 2000.1.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, under the premise that the Defendants did not receive the instant wage and retirement allowance, it is justifiable to distribute the Defendants’ claim for the instant wage and retirement allowance in the first order.

3. Conclusion

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