It cannot be deemed that the delinquent has harmed or unlawful interest in repayment of the delinquent;

The payment deadline after the completion period to demand a distribution of the dividend received through other compulsory execution procedures, separate from the auction, cannot be deemed to have harmed the delinquent taxpayer's interest or to be unlawful, because it appropriated the repayment of the national tax that became due.

2012 grouped 265269 Demurrer against distribution

YellowAAA

Korea

May 16, 2013

May 27, 2013

1. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on September 20, 201 with respect to the auction case of real estate (Seoul Central District Court 201TTA) No. 13792, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 00,000, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 000,000, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by each person, and

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on September 20, 201 with respect to the auction of real estate at the Seoul Central District Court 201 Tata, 13792, the total amount of KRW 000 to the defendant shall be distributed to the plaintiff, and

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had ‘BB' and ‘a loan claim equivalent to the delayed damage', and around 2008, had a real estate provisional seizure against CB-B-house officetels owned by CB-B-B-U.S. The Seoul Central District Court made a decision to commence the auction against HBB-owned Seoul, Gwanak-gu 000, and No. 000 to 000 to 0000' (hereinafter referred to as "the auction of this case"), and on September 20, 2012, the date of the distribution is the national tax delivery authority, and made a distribution schedule of KRW 00 (100% of the dividend rate), and the Plaintiff, the provisional seizure authority, who is the Plaintiff, distributes the amount of KRW 00 (8.03% of the dividend rate) (hereinafter referred to as "the distribution schedule of this case").

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (if several are available, including the number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant should first appropriate the delinquent taxpayer's interest in repayment of the debt, and the debtor's interest rate (1.5% to 3% per month) is higher than the intermediate additional tax (1.2% per month) to be borne by the defendant who is the creditor of the debtor. Thus, the defendant should have exercised the right to appropriation of the debt so that the debtor's interest in repayment can be preferentially repaid to the plaintiff which is larger than that of the defendant. Furthermore, there is a custom where the defendant uses the long amount of tax in arrears, and there is also the defendant's employee in charge, and since the defendant has responded to this, the auction case (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Hu95540) where the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the distribution (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2000 won and the auction case where the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the distribution (Yak-gu Office 2012-08-01 public auction) which was later distributed to the defendant, and the debtor's remaining amount of national tax to be paid by the defendant before the date of the auction of this case 11.

B. Determination

(1) The following circumstances are recognized in full view of the respective descriptions of the evidence and the entire purport of the argument in Nos. 1 to 3 and 1 to 3:

(A) Article 477 Subparag. 2 of the Civil Act provides that the custom preferentially appropriated the dividend to the amount in arrears of the national tax for which the statutory due date first comes shall be deemed to have been established, and Article 477(2) of the Civil Act provides that “if the obligation has become due, the payment for the obligor shall be appropriated

(B) However, there seems to be no difference between the national tax that became due prior to August 11, 201 and the national tax that became due after the time limit for demanding an auction of this case (Article 21(1) through (3) of the National Tax Collection Act, and the delinquent taxpayer’s repayment interest appears to be nonexistent (Article 21(1) through (3) of the National Tax Collection Act, if the national tax was not paid in full by the time limit for payment, the additional dues equivalent to 3

In addition to the increased tax amount corresponding to 12/100 of the national tax in arrears for a period of up to 60 months each time when 1 month elapses, it is stipulated that the increased tax shall be collected in addition to the increased tax amount corresponding to 12/100 of the national tax in arrears for a period of up to 60 months, and the tax remaining as the amount in arrears for a period of time prior to the completion period for demand for distribution, which remains as the amount in arrears for each payment period of value added tax for January 2005, value added tax for 2010, value added tax for 2010, value added tax for 201, value added tax for each payment period of value added tax for 1.2% each month and the increased tax amount for each payment period after the completion period for demand for distribution was imposed at 1.2% per month by the defendant, and ultimately, from the viewpoint

(C) On the other hand, the meaning of ' preferentially appropriated for the repayment of national taxes that are most beneficial to 1 delinquent taxpayers (debtors)' is that it would be appropriated for the repayment of national taxes among the several delinquent taxes owed by the defendant in the direction of benefiting the delinquent taxpayers, and that it would not be interpreted that it would be appropriated for the repayment of claims that are most beneficial to the delinquent taxpayers among the claims owned by the creditors against the delinquent taxpayers (debtors)

(2) Therefore, the Defendant’s appropriation of the dividend received through other compulsory execution procedures conducted separately from the instant auction to the repayment of the national tax for which the time limit for payment became due after the said time limit for demand for distribution was due, cannot be deemed unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted as it is without merit.

(3) However, in a case where a creditor’s claim amount partly extinguished due to a cause such as repayment, etc. during a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution falls short of the amount of the claim for delivery, the remaining amount of the claim may be asserted as grounds for objection (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27427, Aug. 23, 2007). The Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Defendant had received the national tax in arrears requested for delivery at the auction of the instant case through other auction procedures conducted after the date of the instant distribution,” as above, that “The Defendant had received all dividends after the date of the instant auction,” and that the Defendant received some dividends through other compulsory execution procedures conducted separately from the instant auction and received some dividends, and accordingly, the remainder of the BB’s delinquent amount as of May 1, 2013 at the date of the closing of argument is recognized as 00 private theory, and thus, the amount of dividends to the Defendant ought to be adjusted to KRW 00,000 + each of the dividend amount of the instant distribution schedule - KRW 00000.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and it shall be accepted, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.