Suwon District Court Decision 2012Gahap12 Decided June 14, 2012

Priority of national tax claims on real estate secured by security;

(as in the first instance judgment) If there is any tax claim on the real estate for which the security right has been established, which is subject to the public notice, due on the statutory due date prior to the date of establishment of the security right, the priority between the tax claim and the security right except for the tax shall be determined by the prior date

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Na54555 Demurrer against distribution

ChoA et al.

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Gahap12 Decided June 14, 2012

December 14, 2012

January 18, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The dividends to the defendant in the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on December 26, 2011 with respect to the real estate auction case of Suwon District Court Decision 2010TW 11823 shall be KRW 00,000, and the dividends to the plaintiff Cho Jae-A shall be KRW 00,00, and the dividends to the plaintiff Lee Jae-B shall be corrected to KRW 00,000, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court shall provide its explanation with respect to the instant case except for the reasons and the following modifications:

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal or a brief despite the order to prepare for

2. Matters modified;

o. Item 4 of the first instance court's decision on August 24, 2009 and September 4, 2009

the date of establishment of a collateral security shall be changed to September 4, 2009."

o. On the 4th judgment of the first instance court, "No violation of property rights of the secured party cannot be deemed to exist because the tax authority of the secured party could not replace the secured party," is changed to "no matter how to harm the predictability of the secured party or allow the holding of the secured party to be opened by the tax authority," and thus, it cannot be deemed that it infringes the property rights of the secured party."

3. Conclusion

Then, the judgment of the first instance court that dismissed all the claims of this case against the defendant is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed due to lack of grounds.