Whether the statutory due date takes precedence over the claim to return the lease deposit;

If there is no preferential delinquent tax on mortgage, there is no preferential right to national tax.

Article 3 (Priority of Lease Deposit)

1. From among the distribution schedule prepared by the ○○ District Court on October 18, 2006 with respect to a compulsory auction case of real estate (No. 26389), the amount of 13,390,820 won against the defendant shall be corrected to 0 won, and the amount of 39,884,504 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected to 53,275,324 won.

2. The defendant shall bear the charge of the case.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On Aug. 20, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract between ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○-dong, with a deposit of KRW 60 million, and from October 30, 2002 to October 29, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract between ○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○-dong, which is owned by ○○○○○, with a deposit of KRW 60 million, and obtained a fixed date in advance on August 23, 2002, and completed the move-in report simultaneously with the move-in on October 29, 20

B. After that, on July 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ○○ District Court 2005Kadan37843, which sought the return of the above deposit, and received a favorable judgment from the same court around September 2, 2005 that “○○ shall pay 60 million won to the Plaintiff.” The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Meanwhile, on September 26, 2005, the instant house has completed the registration of ownership transfer from ○○ to ○○○○○○○ on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff was granted the inherited execution clause with respect to the said judgment as a successor to ○○○○○○; and (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff was issued a decision to commence the compulsory sale of the instant house by ○○ District Court 2005 Mata26389 around December 13, 2005, and completed the registration of the entry on December 16, 2005.

D. However, on October 18, 2006, 2006, the ○○ District Court made a claim for delivery of KRW 13,390,820 out of the amount to be actually distributed to 53,275,324 won, which is the date of distribution of the above compulsory auction (legal due date: September 1, 2001), to the Republic of Korea (the head of the competent tax office: the head of the competent tax office) who requested for delivery of global income tax in arrears (legal due date: September 1, 2001), and prepared a distribution schedule of this case with the content that distributes only the remainder of KRW 39,884,504 to the Plaintiff who made a demand for distribution as to the above claim

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, in fact that there is no dispute for recognition, A1, 2, 4, 5, A6, and 7

2. Whether the distribution of dividends is lawful.

A. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff acquired opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act and thereafter transferred the said housing to Park ○○, a court of execution shall consider the above global income tax as priority over the Plaintiff’s claim to return the lease deposit, on the ground that the statutory date of the global income tax on Park ○, a transferee of the said housing, is earlier than the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s opposing power, and thus, examine the legitimacy of the said payment.

B. If real estate on which a mortgage was established is transferred, taxes imposed on a third party, who was the transferee, without any tax in arrears to be collected prior to the mortgage, on the transferor, who was the mortgage, are not given priority to the mortgage even before the statutory due date is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2266, Jan. 31, 1972; 8Da8385, Sept. 24, 1991).

C. Meanwhile, Article 3-2(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that a housing lessee, who has the requisite for counterclaim (delivery of a house and a report on the transfer of a resident registration), and the fixed date on a lease agreement document, has the right to be paid a security deposit in preference to junior creditors or other general creditors, and this purport is to recognize a right similar to a real estate security right in a lease agreement document, if the lessee has a fixed date on a lease agreement document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da30597, Oct. 13, 1992). B) The above legal principle applies to a case where the house was transferred after the lessee acquired the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the ○○○, the former owner of the instant house, was delinquent in national taxes, it would be erroneous that the executing court distributes the comprehensive income tax in arrears

D. Therefore, the dividend amount of KRW 13,390,820 against the Defendant should be corrected to KRW 0; KRW 39,884,504 against the Plaintiff should be corrected to KRW 53,275,324.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so accepted and decided as per Disposition.