Whether or not to distribute a taxation claim after the deadline for demanding a distribution.

Tax claims that can be granted in the distribution process are the remainder after deducting the newly added tax claims from the final claim amount after the completion period for the demand for distribution.

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. On August 31, 2005, regarding the auction case of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate, the amount of dividends against the Defendant out of the dividend table prepared by the same court on August 31, 2005 shall be 31,182,370 won, and the amount of dividends against the Plaintiff shall be corrected to 3,597,974 won, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

○○ District Court’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate Auction case on August 31, 2005, deleted the dividend amount of KRW 34,780,344 against the Defendant from among the dividend table prepared by the same court on August 31, 205, and corrected that dividends are distributed to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against Lee ○○

(1) With respect to the obligation to repay the principal and interest of loan to ○○○○○○○ Bank, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement on June 7, 200; the guaranteed amount of 72 million won on June 7, 200; the guaranteed amount of 80 million won on August 25 of the same year; and the guaranteed amount of 45 million won on August 25 of the same year; and ○○○ jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the said credit guarantee agreement.

(2) Around December 15, 200, the Plaintiff paid 199,54,098 won to ○○○ Bank on behalf of the Plaintiff and received the loan from ○○○ Bank upon receipt of a credit guarantee statement under each of the above credit guarantee agreements. As a result, an accident of guarantee due to the delay in repayment of the loan occurred, the Plaintiff paid 457,100 won to ○○ Bank.

B. Imposition of transfer income tax on ○○○

"The chief of the ○○○ Tax Office under the defendant's control (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") refers to ① the transfer income tax of 24,012,340 won on October 1, 2001, ② the transfer income tax of 38,311,060 won on December 1, 2001, ③ the transfer income tax of 1,277,690 won on June 1, 2002, ③ the legal due date of 3,287,050 won on July 1, 2002, ⑤ the legal due date of 20,463,940 won on April 1, 2004, ⑤ the statutory due date of 620 won on April 1, 200, 720 on April 1, 1, 2005, 700 won on June 1, 2005, 206; and individually the auction of each transfer income tax (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer income tax case").

“A stock company, ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, 1,799 square meters, filed an application for an auction of real estate rent on May 30, 2002 with ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, (hereinafter “first auction”), and the auction procedure was commenced on February 14, 2003. The Defendant filed a request for delivery of the capital gains tax on November 1 through 4, 2002, prior to the auction date, and the interest in arrears thereof on March 29, 2003, and subsequently filed a request for an additional delivery on April 17, 2003, excluding the amount to be actually distributed on April 17, 2003, and the Plaintiff was in the order of ○○○, 2057, 986, a corporation succeeding to a fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “○○”).

On April 7, 2003, upon filing an application for a compulsory auction of real estate with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the compulsory auction procedure for the said compulsory auction procedure was overlapped with the said compulsory auction procedure upon the Plaintiff’s application for the compulsory auction (hereinafter referred to as “second compulsory auction case”), the Defendant filed a request for extension, delivery, including all the tax items requested for delivery in the first auction case, on December 16, 204, the date of distribution was 248,775,765 won, which is the date of distribution, to the Defendant, who is the one having the right of seizure, and 38,669,69, which is the one having the right of seizure.

(e) The third auction case;

Upon ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a mortgagee, applied for an auction of real estate rent (hereinafter referred to as “third auction case”), on August 12, 2004, the procedure for the auction of real estate was commenced on August 12, 2004. On August 31, 2005, the amount to be actually distributed on August 31, 2005, from KRW 288,231,794, which was the date of distribution, the distribution was carried out by the Defendant, who was the owner of the attachment, and the Plaintiff was excluded from the said dividend.

F. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act and the instant additional dividends

(1) On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the claim for the cancellation of fraudulent act, etc. against Lee○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and filed a claim for the cancellation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution of the original state with respect to the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the above ○○○○○○○○○○ land, etc. on May 30, 2002. On August 20, 2002, the judgment against the plaintiff was rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on the claim for cancellation of the fraudulent act regarding the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., which was the appellate court’s judgment, revoked the above mortgage contract on August 20, 203.

(2) According to the above judgment of the appellate court, additional dividends was made for the ○○○○ agreement dividends in the auction auction case (hereinafter referred to as the “additional dividends in this case”). On November 1, 2004, the Defendant requested delivery of KRW 119,112,650 in addition to the transfer income tax and the interest in arrears for the transfer income tax of KRW 5,51,210 on November 1, 2004 and the interest in arrears of KRW 22,51,210 on a total. The Plaintiff, who is the provisional seizure authority, was excluded from the above dividends. The distribution schedule was prepared in order of KRW 94,648,555 on November 25, 2004, at KRW 11,225,625,625,83,422,930, respectively, and the Plaintiff, who is the provisional seizure authority, was excluded from the above dividends.

G. A lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant additional dividends

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the defendant and Ma○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on the additional dividends of this case, and the defendant asserted that the defendant made a demand for distribution only in the additional dividends procedure of this case, which was after the completion period for the demand for distribution of the first auction case. The above court ruled that the defendant filed a claim for the delivery of the capital gains tax of 1 through 4 prior to the auction date of the first auction case, which was conducted under the former Civil Procedure Act (Law No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002, before the enactment by the court of civil execution, which was the expiration date for the demand for distribution of the first auction case, and for the additional delivery of the capital gains tax of 5,00 and its interest in the additional dividends of this case, the claim that the defendant could receive a dividend, after being claimed for delivery of the capital gains tax of 119,112,650 won in the additional dividends procedure of this case, only the amount newly added from KRW 5222,516,461,4600 won.6

(h) Lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the second auction case;

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant, etc. against the distribution of the second auction case against the Defendant, etc. (the foregoing and related cases were merged into ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ case). Of the dividends distributed to the Defendant in the second auction case, the amount equivalent to KRW 83,50,822,930, out of the dividends distributed to the Defendant in the second auction case, the dividends paid to the Defendant in the amount of KRW 97,50,82,930, out of the dividends distributed to the Defendant in the second auction case, was illegal as duplicate dividends, and thus, the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 2006, which corrected the dividend amount of KRW 97,50,820 against the Defendant in the second auction case (i.e., KRW 97,50,820, KRW 820, KRW 83290).

Evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant had already received distributions in the instant additional distribution procedure and the secondary auction procedure with the same claim, 34,780,344 won distributed to the defendant in the third auction procedure is unlawful.

B. Determination

According to the following facts: (i) the completion period for demand for distribution of the third auction case is January 5, 2005; (ii) the Defendant demanded delivery of KRW 119,249,390 on November 26, 2004; (iii) the capital gains tax and interest thereon on May 19, 2005; (iv) again requested delivery of KRW 7,70 and interest on delay thereof on July 8, 2005; (v) the amount of KRW 30 and KRW 470 on July 8, 2005; (v) the amount of KRW 30 and KRW 470 on July 19, 200; (v) the amount of KRW 30 and KRW 47 on July 8, 2005; and (v) the amount of KRW 768,150 on July 19, 200; and (v) the amount of KRW 30 and KRW 4750 on the remaining dividends; and (v) the amount of KRW 16785.

Therefore, among the distribution schedule of the third auction case, the amount of 34,780,344 won against the defendant should be 31,182,370 won, and the amount of 3,597,974 won against the plaintiff should be corrected respectively.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.