Whether or not to receive the dividends of the relevant delinquent amount requested after the deadline for demanding a distribution.

Even in the case of such taxes, additional dues of such taxes, and increased additional dues, distribution may be made only to the amount claimed until the dividend period.

Article 47 of the National Tax Collection Act

Suwon District Court 2016dan53115

○○○○

Korea

December 15, 2016

02.02 09

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 63,943,840 won with 5% interest per annum from September 8, 2016 to February 9, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/20 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 64,280,560 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) The Plaintiff’s acquisition of collateral security claims and the registration of seizure of the Defendant (○○○ Tax Office);

1) On September 5, 2012, 00, the ○○ Saemaul Depository completed the registration of the creation of a collateral security right (hereinafter “instant collateral security right”) with respect to the land located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) which is located in the Chang-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant land”).

2) On May 15, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of seizure by the disposition on default on the instant land (hereinafter “registration of seizure”).

3) On October 1, 2013, the instant right to collateral security was changed to △△△△.

4) On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant registration of collateral security on the ground of the transfer of confirmed claim on the same date.

B. The auction procedure for the land of this case and the amount of dividends of the plaintiff, the defendant, etc.

1) On March 26, 2015, upon the application of the ○○ Saemaul Savings Depository, the procedure of the auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”) was commenced on March 26, 2015 with respect to the instant land. The Plaintiff, who was transferred the instant mortgage, succeeded to the ○○ Saemaul Savings Depository.

2) On July 7, 2016, the auction court distributed KRW 72,405,720 to the Defendant (the amount of claims KRW 72,405,720) who was the holder of the right to deliver (the pertinent tax) a second priority, KRW 3,510,84,262 to the ○○ Savings Bank (the amount of claims KRW 3,510,84,262), which is the holder of the right to create a mortgage, and KRW 3,510,84,262 to the ○ Savings Bank (the amount of claims KRW 3,510,84,262), which is the holder of the right to create a mortgage, the third priority of the Plaintiff (the amount of claims KRW 1,906,13,66, the maximum amount of claims, KRW 1,34,65,73

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Relevant legal principles;

1) A creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the auction, or a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts, may only receive a distribution until the completion period for the demand for distribution. In a case where a lawful demand for distribution has not been made, even a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, may not receive a distribution from the proceeds of sale. Even if a creditor has a right to demand a distribution until the completion period for the demand for distribution, where only a part of the claim has been made, a claim not to demand a distribution after the completion period for the demand for distribution, may not be added or expanded, and the same shall also apply to an incidental claim, such as interest, etc., which has not been additionally made, if the purport of seeking a payment until the date of demand for distribution is indicated in the written request for a request for auction or in the written request for a demand for a distribution submitted prior to the completion period for a demand for distribution. This legal principle is equally applicable to a request for a final distribution, regardless of the previous demand for a final distribution.

Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the effect of the seizure of real estate, etc. conducted by the head of a tax office shall also extend to the delinquent amount of the national taxes for which statutory due date has arrived before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The purport of the above provision is to register the seizure once, and if the seizure is completed, it is merely effective as a matter of course without obtaining a new registration of seizure as to the delinquent amount of the national taxes incurred thereafter, and it does not recognize a special priority of the national tax claims arising after the seizure, and it does not purport to recognize the validity of a request for delivery of all delinquent taxes accrued until the date of distribution after the seizure. Therefore, if a separate request for delivery or evidentiary document is not submitted by the date of sale after the registration of the disposition of delinquent national taxes in arrears, the executing court shall distribute the delinquent amount recognized by the registration request on the execution record, but if the dividend amount exceeds the actual delinquent amount at the time of the seizure claim causing the seizure disposition, the portion in excess shall be subject to a junior dividend holder (see the judgment of 1014.

2) In case where the registration of seizure by the disposition on default was completed prior to the time when the decision on commencing the auction was made, even if the State does not make a request for delivery under Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act, it becomes effective as a matter of course with the registration of distribution under the Civil Procedure Act. In this case, if the State fails to submit evidential documents to calculate the delinquent tax amount by the successful bid date, the court of auction shall investigate and distribute the delinquent tax amount pursuant to the relevant request for the registration of seizure. In such a case, even if the report on delinquent tax amount was made prior to the successful bid date, the State may again submit the corrected evidentiary documents, etc. until the distribution schedule is prepared. The auction court shall calculate the delinquent tax amount to be paid by the State within the limit of the requested amount under the above registration of seizure by the documents, evidence, etc. submitted by the State at the time of the preparation of the distribution schedule, unless there are special circumstances, within the limit of the requested amount under the above registration of seizure. Accordingly, the scope of preferential distribution can be claimed by the State upon the revised request after the successful bid date.

(b) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the descriptions of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and the whole purport of the arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged:

1) Of the claimed amount of the registration of the instant attachment, the pertinent taxes (comprehensive real estate holding tax and its additional charges) are KRW 8,461,880 (the amount of value-added tax and its additional charges).

2) The completion period to demand a distribution of the instant auction procedure is June 5, 2015.

3) The Defendant filed a request for delivery to an auction court three times after the completion period to demand a distribution.

(1) The submission of a first written request for delivery to "increased additional charges to be added each month by October 28, 2015, and by the date of distribution," 22,364,510 won or by the date of distribution.

(2) The second written request for a delivery to be increased monthly by December 1, 2015, including KRW 35,275,670, and by the date of distribution.

(3) The third written request for a delivery of increased additional charges to be added monthly by December 28, 2015, and by the date of distribution of KRW 72,525,940, and by the date of distribution.

4) The auction court distributed a total of KRW 72,405,720 equivalent to the pertinent tax (comprehensive real estate holding tax and its additional tax) out of the amount of the third claim for delivery to the Defendant.

C. Determination

The Defendant may receive preferential dividends only within the scope of KRW 8,461,880, which is included in the amount claimed for the registration of the seizure of this case, among the pertinent taxes (including additional dues and the amount added thereto) claimed after the completion period to demand a distribution of the auction procedure of this case. The Defendant may not receive preferential dividends for such excess amount. The Defendant received additional dividends equivalent to KRW 63,943,840, which should be distributed to the Plaintiff without any legal cause (i.e., KRW 72,405,720 - KRW 8,461,880), and thus, has the obligation to return such profits to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff is obliged to return such profits (the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s unjust enrichment is KRW 64,280,560, on the premise that the pertinent amount claimed for the registration of the seizure of this case is KRW 8,125,160, on the premise that the pertinent value

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from September 8, 2016 to February 9, 2017, which is the date of this decision, where it is recognized that it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the scope of its obligation to pay to the Plaintiff from September 8, 2016 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, and at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Part of the plaintiff's claim is accepted.