Claim to distribute to a creditor the amount of national taxes paid out of the dividends of auction;

As long as the intention to demand a distribution of additional dues has been clearly stated by claiming the delivery of not only the principal tax in arrears but also the additional charges before the completion period to demand a distribution, the additional charges from the completion date to the date of distribution shall also be distributed preferentially to the general claims as the incidental claims of the principal tax in arrears.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on May 29, 2006, the amount of 478,571,350 won against the defendant among the dividend table prepared by ○○○○ court ○○○○ court ○○○○○ branch 2004, 3658, the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be 5 won, and the amount of dividends against the plaintiffs shall be corrected to each amount indicated in the "additional dividend statement" column.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 7, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming damages with Cheongju District Court ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) as the defendant and sentenced on May 25, 2004 that “○○○” was to pay each of the money indicated in the amount of the claim indicated in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs. The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 25, 2004.

B. On May 24, 2004, when the plaintiffs filed an application for a compulsory auction against the above rest area buildings (part of shares had already been transferred to a third party) in ○○○○○○○○○-si, 85-10, etc. in the above court with the above judgment as an executive title (title of debt), the compulsory auction procedure for the above rest area buildings was commenced on May 24, 2004 at the above court 2004ta-3658, and the above auction court set the period to demand a distribution of the above compulsory auction case as August 23, 2004.

C. On the other hand, on November 29, 2002, the Defendant seized the above rest area building on the grounds that ○○○ was in arrears with taxes of KRW 335,142,190 in total, KRW 335,740 in total, KRW 286,487,450 in total, and additional charges (including increased additional charges; hereinafter the same shall apply) on December 9, 2009, the above auction court requested for the correction of KRW 113,125,00 in total, KRW 36,487,450 in total, and KRW 113,69,69, KRW 369,60 in total, and KRW 465,60 in total, and KRW 485,67 in total, and KRW 2865,67 in total, and KRW 400 in total, KRW 286,50 in total, and KRW 500 in the above auction court.

D. On May 29, 2006, the above auction court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 478,571,350 in the first order among KRW 691,93,693,693, which is to be actually distributed after deducting the execution cost, etc. from the proceeds from the sale of the buildings at the above rest area, and KRW 1,475,980 in the second order to the defendant, and KRW 37,32,523 in the separate sheet to the defendant, and KRW 37,32,523 in the third order to the defendant, and KRW 44,296,134 in the separate sheet to the non-party ○○ (holder of provisional seizure).

E. The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution of the above compulsory auction case and raised an objection against the amount of distribution of the Defendant.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that, on September 11, 1998, 000, ○○ was established for the operation, lease, sale, etc. of the above rest area building, and that the above rest area building was not completed even until the time of the instant dividend, and that there was no substantial business activity. The Hong○○ and Jung○, which operated the above ○○○○, only committed a large fraud crime under the above rest area business and its sale. Thus, the defendant's disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax on ○○○ was unfair, and that the defendant's request for delivery of the above rest area building and the seizure of the above rest area building and the distribution of the auction procedure against the defendant by the execution court is also unjust.

On the other hand, the taxation disposition by the tax authority is an administrative disposition with fairness and is null and void, or unless the taxation disposition is revoked by the tax authority itself or by the administrative appeal or administrative litigation constructor, the validity of the taxation disposition cannot be asserted in the civil procedure. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the ○○○ does not completely engage in the business activity in light of the statement in subparagraph 1-1 through 12 of the evidence No. 11-12. Moreover, the above taxation disposition cannot be deemed null and void on the sole basis of the fact that the above rest area building is not completed or the actual operator of ○○○ committed a crime such as fraud, etc.

B. In addition, under Article 84 of the Civil Execution Act, when the seizure following the decision on commencement of distribution has become effective, the court of execution shall determine the completion period to demand a distribution prior to the first sale date, taking into account the period required for the procedure, and notify the creditors, etc. known to the court. The junior administrative officer, etc. shall notify the public institution in charge of taxes and other public charges of the existence of the claim, its cause and amount (including the principal, interest, expenses and other incidental claims) to the court by the deadline for requesting a distribution. As such, only 39,612,60 won which the defendant requested a delivery prior to August 23, 2004, which is the completion period for requesting a distribution in the auction procedure of this case, should be distributed to the defendant including the additional charges that the defendant requested a delivery after the completion period for the distribution, and even if the defendant could make a request for the delivery of additional charges, etc. incurred until the preparation of the distribution schedule after the completion date for the demand for distribution, it cannot be distributed in excess of the delinquent amount stated in the seizure request.

In light of the above, since the national tax, additional dues, or expenses for disposition on default shall take precedence over other public imposts or other claims (Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) and the additional dues and aggravated additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are naturally created under Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act and determined in the same Act, and thus, have the nature of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest on unpaid national taxes, and the amount is determined as interest on arrears ( different from additional tax). If the defendant clearly stated his/her intention to demand a distribution of additional dues by requesting the auction court to deliver not only the principal tax in arrears before the expiration date of the request for distribution but also its additional dues to the date of request for distribution is different from the submission of the claim statement, and thus, it is reasonable to preferentially distribute the amount of additional dues until the date of distribution date as incidental claims of the principal tax in arrears before the expiration date of the request for distribution distribution, the judgment of the Supreme Court cited the above plaintiffs' assertion that the amount of demand for distribution exceeds 150.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit.