Determination of priority of national tax bonds and lease deposit money;

The priority order of national tax bond and lease deposit should be determined by comparing the legal date of national tax bond and the fixed date of lease deposit with the fixed date.

2013 grouped 435500 Demurrer

the United Nations A

Korea

January 21, 2014

February 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On August 29, 2013, concerning the case of the application for a voluntary auction of real estate, the District Court 2013 Doz. 3272

of this distribution schedule, the dividends of the defendant shall be deleted from the dividends of the defendant and shall be excluded from the dividends

The amount of dividends against the plaintiff shall be changed to the amount of O,O, andO.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement and received a fixed date upon setting the deposit amount between O-O-OB apartment O-OB apartment O-OB apartment O-O-OB apartment O-O-O2 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between O-O-OB apartment O-O-OB apartment O-O-O2 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

B. On January 15, 2013, the apartment of this case was decided to commence voluntary auction on January 15, 2013, and the remainder of the O, O,OO, andOO members were distributed to each of the O, O,O, and O, O, and OO members to the Defendant (EEE Tax Office, the pertinent tax office, and the pertinent tax office) on August 29, 2013. The apartment of this case was distributed to the FF cooperatives, the mortgagee, the second priority, and was distributed by the O,O, andO members to the Defendant (beneficiary).

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, as a tenant with a fixed date, could not have predicted that comprehensive real estate holding tax should be imposed on the lessor assistanceG at the time of the lease contract and the fixed date, and therefore, it is unreasonable to exclude the plaintiff from the dividend.

B. Determination

According to Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes, additional dues, or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public imposts or other claims. However, in a case where the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage is registered before the statutory due date of a national tax, the secured claim may be paid in preference to national taxes, and in a case where the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage is registered, such secured claim may be paid in preference to national taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da30597, Oct. 13, 1992). Accordingly, the order of dividend should be determined by comparing the statutory due date of a national tax and the due date of granting a fixed date of a lessee’s fixed date. Furthermore, according to Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 16 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, in principle, the statutory due date of comprehensive real estate holding tax shall be the date of notification if the taxpayer files a report from December 1 to 15 of the relevant year.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole purport of the arguments, ChoG imposed by the defendant on ChoG, OO, OO, comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2012, OO, OO, OO, andOO for the year 201, and the defendant requested delivery during the instant auction procedure. Of these, comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 201, other than the pertinent tax, was paid by OO, OO, and OOO as part of them under the third priority of the defendant. The type of attributable to the above year 2011.

The statutory due date of the combined real estate tax can be recognized as the fact on November 16, 201. Ultimately, the above statutory due date is earlier than July 16, 2012, for which the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date, and thus, the Defendant may receive a preferential distribution of the Plaintiff’s lease deposit claims.

In addition, just because the Plaintiff did not know about the comprehensive real estate holding tax against the lessor at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract and the date of the fixed date, the Plaintiff’s deposit cannot be the basis for receiving preferential dividends than the Defendant’s national tax.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.