The Plaintiff’s claim for seizure and collection of the instant deposit does not constitute claims under the proviso to Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

The Plaintiff’s claim for seizure and collection of the instant deposit does not constitute claims under the proviso of Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to receive dividends prior to the Defendant.

Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013 Single 6763 Distribution

Section AA

Korea

July 12, 2013

August 14, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"Attachment 1 of Attached Table 1 of the Daegu District Court" means each amount stated in the "actual dividend of the same Table" among the dividend table prepared by the Daegu District Court with respect to the dividends in each of the dividend procedure cases, each amount stated in the "actual dividend of the same Table" for the plaintiff, and each amount stated in the "actual dividend of the same Table" with respect to the dividends in each of the dividend procedure cases shall be corrected to each of the OOO members (the same shall apply as above). The reasons therefor.

1. Basic facts

(3) On March 2, 2007, the plaintiff filed a claim for return of dividends on 10, 207, 30, 20, 30, 10, 20, 20, 30, 10, 30, 40, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 10, 30, 20, 30, 206, 30, 10, 206, 30, 40, 206, 20, 30, 10, 206, 30, 200, 10, 206, 30, 10, 206, 30, 40, 206, 20, 30, 206, 30,000,000,00,000,00,000.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

① In light of the fact that the Defendant seizes real estate owned by KimB immediately after the delinquency in the taxation claim and the considerable period of time has elapsed, ② cancelled without any other legal measure of seizure, ③ did not take any legal measure against KimB after the cancellation of the attachment, it is unreasonable to distribute the deposit of this case to the Defendant.

3. Determination

(1) According to Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears shall be collected in preference to other public imposts or other claims: Provided, That in cases where national taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears are collected from the amount of disposition on default of local taxes or public imposts, (1) such amount of disposition on default of national taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears in cases where national taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears are collected from the amount of sale of property through compulsory execution, auction or bankruptcy procedures (Article 2); (3) If national taxes, additional dues (excluding national taxes and additional dues imposed on property) are collected from the amount of sale of property for which the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to lease on a deposit basis, or the right to lease on a deposit basis (Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act or Article 14 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act).

Meanwhile, in light of the public interest of taxation claims, the principle of priority in taxation claims is not a taxpayer's specific property, but rather a taxpayer's specific property as a matter of law, and legal ipso facto arise, it cannot be deemed that there is an inherent limitation that the tax authority should first appropriate the specific real estate from the proceeds from the sale of the real estate in question, in light of the fact that the tax imposed on the specific real estate in question should be first appropriated from the proceeds from the sale of the real estate in question, in light of the tax authority without any way to block the realization and collection of the proceeds from the sale of the specific property, among various property owned by the taxpayer, until the amount of proceeds from the sale of the real estate with priority is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da38763, Dec. 12, 197).

4. Conclusion

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