Korean Lease Credit Ltd.

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 (Attorneys Park Sang-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 26, 2003

1. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on April 22, 2003 with respect to the auction of construction machinery (No. 16152), the amount of dividends against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends of KRW 18,823,174 shall be corrected to distribute to the plaintiff KRW 18,823,174.

2. The plaintiff's claim against Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and defendant Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part arising between the plaintiff and defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be borne by

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on April 22, 2003 with respect to the auction case of construction machinery (No. 16152), the amount of dividends of KRW 5,512,210 for the defendant Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the amount of dividends of KRW 18,823,174 for the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends of KRW 24,335,384 for the plaintiff shall be corrected to be distributed to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Central Lease Finance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Central Lease Co., Ltd., and the following Central Lease Co., Ltd.) entered into a lease agreement with respect to the astronomical air listed in the [Attachment] List (hereinafter referred to as “the instant astronomical Air”) between literatureless performance on May 22, 192, as follows:

AG92-051-000 Rental Contract Number AG92-051-000 (one time - 30 times), monthly 11,924,100 (31 - 60 times) and monthly 11,924,100 won (31 times - - 60 times) from the date of issuance of a certificate of rent of KRW 90 months (90 months from the date of issuance of the certificate of rent of KRW 830,00,00,00, the acquisition cost of sexual pressure industry machinery and equipment Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the table of leased articles included in the main text.

B. After that, on August 26, 1992, the name of the lessee of the said lease was changed from the literature and geological perspective to the peace and geological corporation (representative director) (representative director), and following the change of the user’s trade name, it was changed from the peace and geological corporation on November 12, 1992 to the peace and sound corporation (the representative director, and the following.).

C. On December 22, 1992, it was handed over by the Central Lease, and entered into an entry into a contract with the Large-Term Co., Ltd. with respect to the instant tent. On January 18, 1993, it completed new registration in its name with respect to the instant tent in the construction machinery register, and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security right in the name of the Central Lease with respect to the instant astronomical Air in order to secure the payment obligation of rent, etc. for the peaceful dry. The registered name of the said astronomical Air was changed to the Peace on July 19, 194.

D. After completing new registration with respect to the construction machinery of this case, Defendant Yongsan-gu, which was delegated with the authority to impose and collect acquisition tax on the construction machinery of this case, Defendant Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Yongsan-gu, in the following cases) imposed acquisition tax on the construction machinery of this case from February 18, 1993 to March 1, 1993, the acquisition tax on the construction machinery of this case, which was newly registered or transferred to its name, was imposed on the aggregate of KRW 27,237,750 (including additional tax) and the acquisition tax on the construction machinery of this case from February 18, 1993 to March 1, 193, including the property tax on the construction machinery of this case and the additional tax on the total of KRW 14,853,700 (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was delegated with the authority to impose and collect acquisition tax from Defendant Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the property tax on the construction machinery of this case.

E. On November 27, 1998, the Central Lease entered into an asset and debt acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff including the instant astronomical air. On January 27, 1998, the creditor of the said lease agreement changed to the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff that the creditor of the said lease agreement transferred the claim pursuant to the said agreement to the Plaintiff on January 29, 199. On February 10, 199, the Plaintiff completed the registration of change to the title holder of the registration of establishment of the said right to collateral security as to the instant astronomical air.

F. The Plaintiff terminated the above lease agreement on February 17, 200, when it was in arrears with the lease fee for the instant tent from 23 occasions, and on February 15, 2000, the amount of the obligation to pay, such as the lease fee for the peaceful sound as of February 15, 200, is KRW 975,287,795.

G. The Plaintiff did not pay the above rent, etc., and filed an application for the auction of construction machinery of this court around 2001, around 16152, and demanded the payment of the above rent, etc. with respect to the instant astronomical construction. However, on April 22, 2003, this court distributed 24,335,384 won remaining after deducting the execution cost of KRW 5,985,40 from the amount to be distributed to the Defendant Yongsan-gu, a seizure authority, at KRW 30,320,784, including the sales price of the instant astronomical construction machinery of this case, KRW 25,200,00, and the amount to be distributed to the Defendants. The Plaintiff distributed 24,335,384 won to Defendant Yongsan-gu, a seizure authority, KRW 5,512,174 (dividend ratio: 100%) and KRW 18,823,174 (Distribution ratio: 6.21%) to the Defendants as to dividends.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 11 through 14, 16, 3-1, 2, 3 through 5, 6-1, 2, and 3 of evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-3, and the whole purport of oral argument

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant astronomical term is deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff by importing central lease and transferring it to the Plaintiff. Since it was registered in the name of the formal ownership of the instant astronomical term in accordance with the land entry contract with the YY, and thereafter, the title of ownership was registered in the name of the peacer, a facility lessee, and then the registration was made. Thus, the Defendants’ disposition imposing property tax or acquisition tax on the instant astronomical term is null and void, and thus, it is unfair that the Defendants received dividends as seen earlier in the above auction procedure on the instant astronomical term on the ground of null and void tax claim, and as such, the Defendants received dividends from the auction procedure on the instant astronomical term on the ground of the grounds of the invalidity tax claim as seen earlier, inasmuch as it was received as a dividend was based on a claim for taxation on the heavy term in the auction procedure on the instant astronomical term,

(2) Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

In the instant case, the Defendant’s ownership of heavy term, and the statutory due date for the property tax or acquisition tax claim against the Defendants’ heavy term is earlier than the registration date for the establishment of a mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name as to the instant astronomical air. Therefore, it is justifiable that the Defendants received dividends as seen earlier.

B. Determination

(1) As to the owner of the instant tent

Article 13-2(1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act (amended by Act No. 4450, Dec. 27, 1991); (i) the said provision has been repealed by the said Act and Article 33(1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act; (ii) may be registered in the name of a lessee (excluding a person who acquires the ownership of specified objects in deferred payment sales; hereinafter the same shall apply) despite the provisions of the former Automobile Management Act or the Automobile Management Act, in consideration of the ownership of a new automobile owned by the lessee and its new equipment leased in the name of the said Act to ensure that the lessee can use the vehicle under the said Act and its new equipment leased in the name of the owner or lessee; (iii) the former Automobile Rental Business Act provides that the owner or lessee shall be deemed to have the duty to maintain and manage the vehicle under the said Act and the provisions of Article 13-3(1) of the said Act shall be deemed to have been applied to a new equipment leasing company for the purpose of acquiring, altering, or using the vehicle under the said Act.

However, (1) Of construction machinery leased in the name of the user of construction machinery, its ownership cannot be deemed to have been entrusted to the management of the mid-term construction machinery by a trust management contract with the company (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu17273, Jul. 25, 1989). (2) The former Mid-Term Management Act (amended by Act No. 4518, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "former Construction Machinery Management Act") was amended by Act No. 4561, Jun. 11, 1993.), Article 5 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 5104, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply to the former Construction Machinery Management Act). However, the former Construction Machinery Management Act’s ownership cannot be deemed to have become effective unless the latter is registered in the name of the user of construction machinery (Article 6(1)6 of the current Automobile Management Act).

As seen earlier, since July 19, 194, the instant astronomical Period was changed in the name of the peace house, a facility lessee, and the Defendants completed the attachment registration as to the instant astronomical Period on September 4, 1993, before the registration of change was made in the name of the peace house after the registration of change was made in the name of the establishment of the establishment, a branch company, and the central lease or the Plaintiff did not register the instant astronomical Period in its name. Thus, in the instant case, in which the registration title of the large celebal period concerning the instant astronomical Period cannot be deemed as the same as the registration title of the peace house, a facility lessee, cannot be deemed as the same as the registration title of the peace house, a facility lessee, until the registration of change was completed in the name of the establishment.

(2) As to the validity of the tax imposition disposition

As seen above, as at the time when the Defendants imposed property tax or acquisition tax and as at the time of completing the registration of seizure according to the delinquency in payment of market price, the owner of the instant astronomical air shall be deemed to be a large-scale owner. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the instant astronomical air is owned by the Plaintiff shall not

(3) As to the dividend order

Article 31 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 2, 194) provides for the tax amount to be collected from a taxpayer or a person liable for extraordinary collection in preference to other claims, except as otherwise provided for in Article 10 of the former Local Tax Act. This provision shall not apply to other impositions of a local government and the additional dues and expenses for disposition on default (hereafter, “national tax” in this Chapter) within 10 days before the date on which the tax base or liability for payment of the acquisition tax is established, and the tax amount to be collected by the tax amount calculated under Article 12 of the former Local Tax Act shall be provided for in subparagraph 3 separate from the date on which the tax base or liability for assessment of the local tax is calculated by 10 days before the date on which the tax base or the additional tax is reported and paid, and the tax amount to be collected by the tax official shall be provided for in Article 189 of the same Act by 16 months after the date on which the tax base or tax base is reported and paid, respectively.

Meanwhile, an additional tax under the Local Tax Act is the amount to be collected in addition to the amount calculated under the Act where the obligation is not performed in order to ensure the faithful performance of the obligation under the Local Tax Act. Even if the additional tax is imposed and collected as the principal tax, its nature differs in essence from the principal tax (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da31697, Sept. 4, 1998). Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995, Dec. 6, 1995) provides that if a taxpayer fails to file a tax return and pay an additional tax within 30 days from the date on which the taxpayer acquires the object of taxation under the Local Tax Act, the additional tax is to be collected by the ordinary collection method; Article 120 and Article 121 of the same Act provides that if a taxpayer fails to file a tax return and pay an additional tax within 30 days from the date on which the taxpayer acquires the object of taxation under the Local Tax Act, the additional tax is to be collected by a tax payment notice under Article 3014(1).

In light of the above provisions and legal principles, Defendant Yongsan-gu imposed the above property tax on Defendant Yongsan-gu prior to the date of registration of the establishment of the Central Lease on the Air of this case, but Defendant Yongsan-gu imposed the above acquisition tax on construction machinery owned by it, etc., with additional tax after the date of registration of the establishment of the said right to collateral security, since Defendant Yongsan-gu imposed the above acquisition tax by failing to pay the acquisition tax on construction machinery, etc. owned by it voluntarily, as seen earlier. Therefore, in light of the above provisions and legal principles, Defendant Yongsan-gu’s property tax claim takes precedence over

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 18,823,174 won distributed to the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City should be distributed to the plaintiff prior to his order. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City seeking correction of the distribution schedule is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Yongsan-gu is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form Omission]

Judge Lee Jae-soo