Whether the statutory date and the person holding the right to create the collateral security are priority;

It is recognized that the tax requested for delivery does not fall under the pertinent tax and the legal day is subordinate to the date of establishment of the right to collateral security, but it was paid dividends of the goods which are not established by the right to collateral security.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014 Ghana 14330 Demurrer

00AA

Republic of Korea, the MinimumA

April 17, 2015

May 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Of the dividend table prepared by the said court on June 11, 2014 with respect to the auction case of the real estate ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Changwon District Court 2013, the dividend amount of KRW 51,455,675 against the Republic of Korea shall be KRW 6,455,675, and the dividend amount of KRW 26,000,000 against the Defendant LA shall be KRW 21,00,000, and the dividend amount of KRW 50,000 against the Plaintiff shall be corrected respectively.

1. Basic facts

In the auction procedure of real estate in 2013, ○○○○, 2013, △△△△△, around 2014, hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”), four real estate sold and distributed dividends from each sales price as follows.

원고는 2012. 8. 20. AA종합건설 주식회사 소유의 ○○시 □□구 △△동 95-3 제5층 ◈◈◈호를 보증금 50,000,000원으로 정하여 임차한 임차인인바, 같은 날 위 부동산(◈◈◈호)에 전입신고를 마쳤으며, 위 보증금반환채권을 담보하기 위하여 2012. 8. 20. 위 물건 1, 2에 관하여 채권최고액 50,000,000원으로 하는 근저당권설정등기를 마쳤다.

On January 6, 2012, Defendant LA completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 35,000,000 with respect to the said goods 1 and 2.

In the instant auction procedure on June 11, 2014, the aforementioned sales proceeds of KRW 1,092,080,000 (=667,20,000 + KRW 424,880,00) and the interest thereon were distributed to KRW 1,081,07,585, excluding the execution cost. As for the Defendant Republic of Korea, the amount of KRW 51,45,675, out of the amount of credit 137,887,50,50, as the delivery right holder, was distributed to Defendant LA, and KRW 26,00,00,00 as the mortgagee, and as for Defendant LA, the amount of KRW 51,45,675, out of the amount of credit 137,87,50, as the delivery right holder, was distributed to the

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 45,000,00 among the dividends paid to Defendant Republic of Korea and KRW 5,000,00 among the dividends paid to Defendant LA.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, argument

The purport of the whole

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) a summary of the cause of the claim - the plaintiff's assertion;

The amount of national taxes in arrears requested by the Defendant Republic of Korea is KRW 10,191,420, October 4, 2012, KRW 63,989,470, and KRW 69,688,510, the statutory due date, which is January 25, 2013, and KRW 69,68,510, which is January 25, 2013, and the statutory due date, are corporate taxes of KRW 2,206,360, the statutory due date of which is February 3, 2014, both the Plaintiff’s move-in report and the establishment date of the right to collateral security. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to distribute the amount of national taxes in arrears to Defendant Republic of Korea prior to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

According to each of the evidence Nos. 3 and 1 and 2, as pointed out by the plaintiff, since the tax amount requested by the defendant Republic of Korea does not fall under the pertinent tax and the statutory date is lower than the date of establishing the right to collateral security, if the defendant Republic of Korea received prior dividends from the plaintiff in preference to the plaintiff, this part should be corrected. However, in the auction procedure of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea conducted the auction of the four real estate as mentioned above. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant Republic of Korea received prior dividends from the proceeds from the sale of the goods No. 1 and 2, and instead, considering the overall purport of arguments No. 6 evidence No. 1 and No. 3-1 through No. 3, the defendant Republic of Korea did not receive prior dividends from the proceeds from the sale of the goods No. 1 and No. 2, not from the plaintiff, but from the proceeds from the sale of the goods for which the plaintiff did not set up the right to collateral security.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant LA

A. Summary of the cause of claim - Plaintiff’s assertion

피고 최AA는 그 아들인 안AA이 2012. 1. 3. ○○시 □□구 △△동 95-3 제5층 호를 임차보증금 35,000,000원으로 하여 임차하면서 그 보증금반환채권을 담보하기 위하여 근저당권을 설정받은 자인데, 2013. 3. 1. ◆◆◆호에서 호로 옮기면서 임차보증금을 5,000,000원 증액하게 되었는바, 보증금반환채권 40,000,000원 중 증액분5,000,000원은 원고의 전입신고일인 2012. 8. 20.보다 늦으므로 이에 대해서는 원고보다 배당순위가 후순위라 할 것인데 보증금반환채권 전부에 관하여 원고보다 선순위로 배당한 것은 부당하다.

B. Determination

1) The fact that Defendant LA completed the establishment registration of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 35,00,000 on January 6, 2012 with respect to the goods 1 and 2 in order to secure the obligation to return the deposit amount of the AA, and that the first lease deposit of the AA was KRW 35,000,000, but the fact that the first lease deposit of the AA was increased by KRW 5,000 on March 1, 2013 is no dispute between the parties.

According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 6 and the arguments, Ansan received 14,000,000 won as a small lessee's qualification, and Defendant LA received the remainder of 26,000,000 won as a mortgagee.

2) In the distribution procedure of real estate auction, the heat between the mortgagee of the right to collateral security has been determined by the commencement of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (Article 145(2) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 370 and Article 333 of the Civil Act), and there is no room to deem that the Defendant LA was paid preferentially to the Plaintiff within the scope of the secured claim before the date of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that KRW 5,00,000, out of the secured debt of Defendant LA, occurred later than the date of the Plaintiff’s move-in report and the date of creation of the right to collateral security, and thus, the Plaintiff should be subordinate to the Plaintiff. However, the date of occurrence of the actual secured debt rather than the date of creation of the right

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.