Where a donor purchased real estate and registered transfer in the future of a donee, it can be deemed that the donee was donated at the time of registration.

If the donor purchased real estate from others without completing the registration of ownership transfer in his future without completing the registration of ownership transfer, and immediately completed the registration of ownership transfer in the donee, it is reasonable to view that the gift tax in this case is donated real estate itself at the time of the registration of ownership transfer

2012 Single 8171 Distribution

AAA Savings Bank, Inc.

Korea

November 15, 2012

January 24, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the claim for correction of the third-order dividend amount against the Plaintiff in the distribution schedule prepared by the said legal personnel concerning the real estate auction case No. 201Tcheon District Court No. 2011TWD 989 shall be dismissed.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the claim for correction of the second-order dividend amount against the Plaintiff in the distribution schedule prepared by the said legal personnel concerning the real estate auction case No. 201Tcheon District Court No. 2011TWD 989 is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on July 10, 201 with respect to the auction case of real estate rent in Chuncheon District Court 201ta, 9989, the second priority dividend amount for the plaintiff shall be 000 won, the third priority dividend amount for the plaintiff shall be 000 won, and the third priority dividend amount for the plaintiff shall be 000 won, and the dividend amount to the defendant shall be 000 won, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be found to be in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry into Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2:

A. On May 20, 2005, Non-Party KimB, and thisCC owned 1/2 shares, on May 20, 2005, the provisional registration of the right to request the transfer of all co-owners' shares on the 17th day of the same month was cancelled on November 7, 2005, in the name of Non-Party Kim E-E, with respect to the 00,000 OOri 0,000 m2,691 m2 (hereinafter “the first real property”).

B. On November 7, 2005, the name of Nonparty KimF, an infant of KimE on November 7, 2005, a co-owner’s share transfer registration was completed on the second day of the same month with respect to the instant real estate No. 1.

C. On November 6, 2007, with respect to the instant real estate owned by Kim FF, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 000, the debtor Kim E, and the mortgagee, with respect to the instant real estate owned by Kim E. In addition, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the OO00,000 forest land and KRW 251m251m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “second real estate of this case”) located in Chuncheon-si, KimE-si, Kim E-E, and with respect to the 1st real estate of this case owned by the Plaintiff.

D. The Defendant deemed that KimF donated the instant real estate No. 1 from KimE, and notified the Defendant of the imposition of the gift tax on March 19, 2010 and April 15, 2010 for the payment period (hereinafter “instant gift tax”) on the instant real estate No. 1 under the name of Bocheon Tax Office under the Defendant’s control. The Defendant completed the attachment registration on June 4, 2010 for the instant real estate No. 1.

E. As KimE did not repay the money borrowed as a collateral for each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of the instant real estate Nos. 1 and 2 by the Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Ma989, and the actual amount to be distributed after deducting the execution cost from the sale of the instant real estate in the said voluntary auction procedure (the amount of dividends for the instant real estate No. 1 + the amount of dividends for the instant real estate No. 2 + the amount of dividends for the instant real estate No. 27. 831.48, 27.48). On the date of distribution of the instant case, the Defendant requested delivery of the pertinent gift tax and additional dues on the instant real estate No. 1, and the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee for the instant real estate No. 1, demanded a distribution of KRW 000 and KRW 00 as a mortgagee for the instant real estate No. 2.

F. In the above auction procedure on July 10, 2012, on the premise that the Defendant’s taxation claim on the instant real estate No. 1 takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s secured claim based on the right to collateral security regarding the said real estate, the auction court set up a distribution schedule stating that the amount of dividends on the instant real estate No. 1, out of the amount of dividends on the instant real estate No. 1, is distributed to the Defendant in the first priority order, and that the amount of dividends on the instant real estate No. 2, is distributed to the Plaintiff in the second priority order, and that the amount of dividends on the instant real estate No. 2, is distributed to the Plaintiff, who

G. On this basis, the Plaintiff appeared on the above date of distribution, and raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff, and the gift tax of this case, do not fall under the pertinent tax pursuant to Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the date of registration of establishment of each right to collateral security for each real estate of this case 1.2 is earlier than the statutory date of the above gift tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security based on the above right to collateral security has priority over the Defendant’s tax claims, but the auction court prepared an illegal distribution schedule giving priority to the Defendant, so the above distribution schedule should be modified as stated in the purport of the claim. Accordingly, the Defendant, as the gift tax of this case is the corresponding tax under Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the Defendant’s above taxation

3. Determination that the part concerning the claim for correction of the third distribution amount against the plaintiff is lawful

On its own initiative, regarding the legitimacy of the claim for correction against the plaintiff in the part of the distribution schedule of this case concerning the third priority claim against the plaintiff in the part of the distribution schedule of this case. In order for the creditor to bring an objection to a distribution, the interest in the lawsuit should be met, and if that objection is accepted, his dividends should be increased. The third priority distribution amount against the plaintiff in the distribution schedule of this case was paid to the plaintiff in full as seen earlier, and even if the plaintiff's objection is accepted, there is no room for an increase in the amount of distribution (the defendant has received preferential payment only from the proceeds of the first real estate of this case and did not receive any dividends from the proceeds of the sale of the second real estate of this case). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against this part is dismissed as unlawful.

4. Determination on the claim for correction of the second dividend amount against the plaintiff

If a donor purchased real estate from another person without completing the registration of ownership transfer, and the donee made the registration of ownership transfer in the future, the donor itself shall be deemed to have been donated at the time of the registration of ownership transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da6135, Aug. 20, 199). As seen above, it is reasonable to view that the KimE, which was established on May 17, 2005 for the first real estate on which the owner's share in the real estate was registered for the first time, was cancelled, and then its ownership transfer registration is made in the name of KimF on the same day. Further, Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, is to harmonize the judicial request to ensure the safety of transaction with the public notice, and to ensure the realization of the tax claim, and that the person who would have been aware of the essential contents of the real estate in the first instance, should be considered to have been at the time of the establishment of the real estate in the name of the above 10th real estate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the third-class claim for correction against the plaintiff is unlawful, and the second-class claim for correction against the plaintiff is dismissed as there is no ground to dismiss it.