Whether the successful bid price distributed without deducting tax claims which take precedence over the secured claim is established or whether unjust enrichment is established.

In a case where a claim takes precedence over the defendant's claim, the defendant is liable to return the claim, which is the basis for deducting the claim from the auction price, and if the proceeds of the auction are paid in full without any legal ground, a substantial portion of the amount of the tax would have been acquired, and the country suffers losses due to the failure to receive the above tax which can be received first in the country.

Articles 5 and 35 of the National Tax Collection Act

Korea

Korean Bank, Inc.

Seoul Central District Court (76Gahap2514) in the first instance trial

Each appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by each person.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,427,379 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from March 12, 1976 to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff revoked the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment and sought the same judgment as that of the claim, and the defendant revoked the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

그 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1,4(결의서), 2,5(과세자료전), 3,6(납부통지서), 갑 제2호증(납세현황), 갑 제3호증의 1,2(납세고지서), 갑 제4호증의 1,2(공시송달), 갑 제5호증의 1,2(등기부등본), 갑 제6호증의 1,2(교부청구서), 갑 제7호증(경락대금 지급표), 갑 제10호증의 1(경매조서), 2(경락허가결정), 갑 제11호증(대금지급과 배당기일 소환장), 갑 제12호증의 1,2(교부통지서), 갑 제14호증의 4(경매개시 결정), 갑 제15호증(이유조회)의 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 경북 안동시 남부동 (지번 생략) 소재 대지 17평과 위 지상 철근 콩크리트조 및 세멘벽돌조 스라브가 2층 건평 영업소 1동 건평 17평 7홉 6작 외 2층 건평 17평 7홉 6작(이하 이건 부동산이라 약칭한다)에 관하여 소외 1 명의로 1974.11.15. 대구지방법원 안동지원 접수 제21274호로서 동년 10.1. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기(대지분)와 같은 법원 접수 21273호로서 소유권보존등기(건물분)가 경료되고 1975.9.23. 같은 법원 접수 제20990호로서 동년 9.23.자 매매를 원인으로 하여 소외 1로부터 소외 2 명의로 다시 소유권이전등기가 각 경료되어 있는 사실, 원고산하 안동세무서는 소외 1의 이건 부동산 취득을 그의 남편인 소외 2로 부터의 증여로, 소외 2의 이건 부동산 취득을 그의 처인 소외 1로부터 증여로 보아 소외 1에게 증여세로 금 1,184,620원, 소외 2에게 증여세로 금 1,412,560원, 방위세로 금 282,512원을 납부기한 1975.11.27.로 정하여 각 부과하고 1975.9.23. 이건 부동산을 대구지방법원 안동지원 등기접수 제 20983호, 20991호로 압류등기한 사실, 피고는 이건 부동산이 소외 1의 소유로 있을 당시 소외 2에게 합계 금 6,722,111원을 대여하고 1974.12.30, 1975.1.14, 1975.8.23., 1975.9.13.자로 이건 부동산상에 각 피고를 근저당권자 소외 2를 채무자로 하는 근저당권설정등기를 경료하였던 것인데 소외 2가 위 채무를 그 기일까지 변제하지 아니하자 피고는 위 근저당권에 기하여 1975.10.21. 대구지방법원 안동지원에 이건 부동산에 대한 임의경매 신청을 하여 이건 부동산이 금 7,480,000원에 경락된 사실, 원고는 1975.12.2. 위 경락대금의 배당에 앞서 위 법원에 이건 부동산에 대한 소외 2의 증여세 금 1,412,560원과 국세징수법 소정의 지연가산금 141,256원, 방위세 금 282,512원과 그 가산금 28,251원, 소외 1의 증여세 금 1,184,620원과 그 가산금 118,462원 합계 3,167,661원을 위 경락대금중에서 우선적으로 교부하여 주도록 청구하였으나 그 경락대금 배당에서 제외된 사실, 피고는 1976.3.12. 위 법원으로부터 위 경락대금 7,480,000원과 그 이자 1,844원 합계 7,481,844원중 집행비용 금 109,010원을 공제한 나머지 금 7,372,834원 전부를 원금 6,722,111원과 이자 664,541원중의 일부로 교부받은 사실을 인정할 수 있고 한편 국세징수법 제22조 에 의하면 납부기한 경과 후 90일 이내에 체납된 국세를 납부하지 아니한 때에는 90일이 경과한 날로부터 체납된 국세의 100분의 5에 해당하는 1차중 가산금을 납부기한 경과 후 180일 이내에 체납된 국세를 납부하지 아니한 때에는 다시 체납된 국세의 100분의 5에 해당하는 2차중 가산금을 가산하여 징수하도록 규정하고 있는 터이므로 위 경락대금 배당기일인 1976.3.12. 당시를 기준으로 하여 보면 소외 2와 소외 1은 위 제세금 납부기일인 1975.11.27.로부터 90일을 경과하므로서 위법 소정의 1차중 가산금으로서 소외 2는 금 70,628원을, 소외 1은 금 59,231원을 각 징수당해야 될 입장이었던 사실을 알수 있다 할 것이다.

According to the above facts of recognition, 3,297,520 won in aggregate of gift tax, defense tax and additional dues on, and additional dues on, the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 takes precedence over the defendant's claim, which is a mortgage claim on the real estate in this case under Article 5 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the defendant should be paid dividends out of the auction dividends on the real estate in this case other than the above tax claim, and the defendant was paid the total amount of the successful bid price, and eventually the defendant acquired the money equivalent to the above national tax amount without any legal ground and sustained damages equivalent to the above amount that the plaintiff can receive, so the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff unless there is a special reason for exemption.

In this regard, the defendant's legal representative argues that the original real estate was purchased or acquired by the non-party 2 and completed the title transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1, his wife, and that each registration of transfer cannot be deemed a donation, and therefore, the above gift tax and defense tax imposed on the person concerned is a taxation disposition which is null and void as a matter of course. Therefore, Article 34 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the transferee at the time of transfer by the transferor, notwithstanding the fact that the transferor paid the price for the property to his spouse or lineal ascendant or descendant, and that the property transferred to his lineal ascendant or descendant is deemed to have been donated to the transferee at the time of transfer by the transferor, even if the transfer was made by the termination of the title transfer, as seen in the above recognition, so long as the transfer is the cause of the transfer on the register, it is legitimate to regard it as a donation and impose the gift tax and defense tax.

Next, the purport of the provision of Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is that the mortgager is a delinquent taxpayer, and it does not stipulate the priority between the tax claim and the mortgagee in the event that the third party purchaser fails to pay taxes after the registration of the establishment of the mortgage. Thus, the defendant's legal representative claims that the third party purchaser who acquired the mortgage during the period of ownership of the real estate in this case cannot claim the priority under Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes with the tax claim against the third party who acquired the mortgage. Therefore, the proviso of Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the first priority under Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be imposed on the property, i.e., the national tax and the additional tax imposed on the property, and such special exception shall be applied to the corresponding tax imposed on the third party purchaser. Therefore, the defendant's argument that the third party purchaser should be treated as the exception is without merit.

However, in addition to the above recognition, the plaintiff claims for additional dues of KRW 129,859 (the total amount of additional dues of KRW 70,628 won and KRW 59,231 for non-party 2 and non-party 1) from among the second delinquent debts for the non-party 2 and non-party 1, the plaintiff claims that the above additional dues may be preferentially paid for the auction dividends, but according to Article 22 of the National Tax Collection Act, the second additional dues shall take place only after the lapse of 180 days after the payment period. As seen in the above recognition, on March 12, 1976, when the defendant received the auction dividends for the real estate in this case, the plaintiff's preferential claims for the second additional dues were not created since 180 days have not passed from November 27, 1975, which is the payment period for the gift tax, etc. for the real estate in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the second additional dues should be preferentially paid is without merit

Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above-mentioned amount 3,297,520 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 6, 1976, 1976, the delivery date of this case that the defendant is considered as the beneficiary of bad faith. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case shall be accepted within the above-mentioned recognition scope as reasonable, and the part in excess shall be dismissed as without merit. Accordingly, the court below's conclusion is just, and both appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. The appeal costs are assessed against each appellant who has lost the judgment as per Disposition.

Judge Jeon Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)