Effect of the preservation before the determination of national taxes;

If the national tax is determined and notified after three months have passed from the date of the preservation before the national tax is determined, the attachment shall not be considered to be null and void automatically.

Article 24 (Requirements for Attachment)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

O's local court's 2006ta 531, the amount of dividends to the defendant among the dividend table prepared by the above court on January 19, 2007 shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 64,324,928, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or there is no dispute between the parties.

A. On October 28, 2005, OO also registered the establishment of a collateral security for the Plaintiff and the mortgagee 200,000,000 won with respect to the 2314/12496 shares owned by OO out of the 12,496 square meters of forest land in OO-gun 5 OO-gun, O-gun, O-gun 5,000 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

B. On February 21, 2005, the director of the OO under the defendant's jurisdiction attached the preservation before the determination of national taxes was made, but the seizure was cancelled on July 11, 2005, and the preservation was again made (hereinafter "the seizure of this case"), and on November 29, 2005, the notice uf09e was issued for the payment period on November 30, 2005, and the second attachment was made again on December 1, 2005.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the OO local court No. 2006Ma531, Jan. 19, 2007 based on the foregoing right to collateral security, and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes all the amount of KRW 64,324,928 to the Defendant on the date of distribution open on January 19, 207 during the said auction procedure.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff stated an objection as to the above distribution schedule and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the seizure of this case was improper to distribute it to the defendant on the ground of it, since the national tax was determined after three months from the date of the seizure, notwithstanding the fact that the seizure of this case was the preservation of national taxes prior to the determination of national taxes.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserts that although the seizure of this case constitutes grounds for cancellation of attachment, the seizure itself does not become null and void, the above distribution schedule prepared to distribute to the defendant is justifiable.

B. Determination

According to Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, if it is deemed impossible to collect national taxes after the determination of national taxes due to any cause falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 14 (1) of the International Collection Act, such as when a taxpayer is delinquent in national taxes, etc., the director of the tax office may seize the taxpayer's properties to the extent of the estimated amount of national taxes. According to paragraph (5) of the same Article, when the taxpayer falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the director of the tax office may immediately release the seizure of the property under paragraph (2). In addition, "if the national taxes to be collected by the seizure are not determined until three months have passed from the date of the seizure" under subparagraph 2, the director of the tax office of the tax office of this case notified the taxpayer of the determination of national taxes on November 29, 2005 after three months from the date of the seizure of this case. However, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the seizure of this case cannot be deemed null and void.

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.