The imposition of additional tax shall not take precedence over the plaintiff's claim because the statutory due to a tax assessment different from the principal tax is delayed.

Since the statutory due date of the principal tax and the additional dues are earlier than the registration date of the establishment of the right to collateral security by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the amount of additional tax is in essence different from the national tax and its nature, and the statutory due date of imposition of additional tax is delayed due to the imposition of principal tax

2011 Single 9530 Distribution

KimA

Korea

February 2, 2011

February 16, 2012

1. Of the dividend table prepared on April 11, 2011 by the above court with respect to the auction of real estate (No. 8403) in Suwon District Court, the dividend amount of KRW 93,743,630 against the defendant shall be 66,615,390, and the dividend amount of KRW 12,931,588 against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 40,059,828.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on April 11, 2011 with respect to the auction case of real estate (No. 2010 Dokwon District Court) No. 8403, the amount of dividends to the defendant is deleted and the above amount is distributed to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a senior mortgagee who completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (a maximum debt amount of 180,000,000) with respect to the Suyang-gu O20-00 above ground No. 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) located in Gyeyang-gu, Suyang-gu, Suyang-gu, Suyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Suyang-gu, the Suwon District Court of Korea, No. 10848, Feb. 24, 20

B. The Plaintiff, based on the foregoing collateral security, applied for a voluntary auction of real estate under the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Thyeong8403, and sold the instant real estate on March 21, 201.

C. On April 11, 2011, the above court drafted a distribution schedule to distribute the pertinent KRW 86,840 to the head of Ansan-si District Tax Office, KRW 93,743,630 to the head of Ansan-si Tax Office, KRW 93,743,630 to the head of Ansan-si Tax Office, and KRW 12,931,58 to the Plaintiff in the second order, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the dividend to the head of Ansan-si Tax Office.

D. The defendant filed a claim with the above court for delivery while KimB did not pay the tax amount of KRW 117,161,930 as stated in the attached Table No. 117,161,930, and the items of paragraphs 1 through 3 are as follows.

(1) Value-added tax for 271 minutes in 2007 under Paragraph (1) is set at January 4, 2008, and March 31, 2008, for which payment was made. The principal tax is set at 2,906,010 won, which is set at 2,906,010, until February 24, 2010.

(Omission of List)

(2) The value-added tax for the first period of January 2009 under paragraph (2) is the statutory due date on July 27, 2009 and the due date on December 31, 2009. After KimB filed a false sales report, the amount of value-added tax was reduced to KRW 1,040,000 on June 28, 2010 as a result of the investigation of the processing tax invoice, thereby imposing KRW 8,234,00 for additional tax due to the processing, disguised, and unrepaid issuance of the tax invoice and KRW 54,509 for additional tax were imposed. The Defendant claimed KRW 9,818,500 for the total amount of the corrected value-added tax and the additional tax as stated above at the request for delivery, and the additional dues and aggravated additional dues until February 24, 2010 are as listed in the attached Table.

(3) On January 25, 2010 and April 15, 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 2009 under paragraph (3) is due and payable on January 25, 2010.

In addition, after KimB filed a false report on sales, the result of the processing tax invoice investigation was reduced to 61,250,000 won of value-added tax on June 28, 2010, and the defendant filed a claim for an amount including all additional taxes (3) in the column of 12,848,493 in the case of request for delivery.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the attachment of the Defendant’s real estate due to the delinquency in the payment of taxes by KimB was made on March 25, 2010. The Plaintiff’s claim takes precedence over the Defendant’s claim as a claim secured by the mortgage established prior to the statutory due date of national and local taxes. Since the amount of taxes paid by the Defendant is the value-added tax based on KimB’s false sales tax invoice and the global income tax accrued after the Plaintiff’s establishment registration of the mortgage, the total amount of dividends against the Defendant should be distributed to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant explained the details of the claim for delivery as shown in the separate sheet from December 20, 2011, and explained the details of the claim as indicated in the separate sheet, 2,906,010 won, additional dues of 87,180 won, additional dues of 802,010 won, principal charges of 9,818,500 won, additional dues of 309 won, 304,509 won, 259, 2010

3. Determination

A. Principal value-added tax

(1) Article 35(1)3(a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201) provides for the following:

Paragraph (1) 1: National taxes, surcharges, or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims: Provided, That this shall not apply to public charges or other claims falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

Subparagraph 3: Claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, the right of pledge, or the right of pledge, where national taxes or additional dues (excluding national taxes and additional dues imposed on the property) are collected from the proceeds of sale of the property for which the fact that the establishment of the right of lease on a deposit basis, the right of pledge, or the right of pledge, has been registered or recorded before any of the following dates (hereinafter referred to as "legal due date")

A: In the case of a national tax for which tax liability is determined by tax base and return of tax amount (including interim prepayment corporate tax and value-added tax paid by preliminary return), the date of return for the relevant tax amount declared

(2) According to the above facts, the remainder of the principal tax excluding the additional tax of 8,778,500 won among the principal tax listed in the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is set up by the Plaintiff’s collateral security.

Since the date of registration is earlier than the date of registration, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this is without merit.

B. Additional dues

(1) Although Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not separately provide for the statutory due date, pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, when national taxes are not paid by the due date, additional dues shall be collected by adding the notified amount to the notified amount of tax pursuant to the same Act. Thus, if taxes are not paid by the due date notified in the notice of payment of principal tax pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, the additional dues naturally accrue pursuant to the same provision without a separate final determination procedure by the tax authority. Accordingly, the statutory due date of additional dues shall be deemed to be when the liability to pay additional dues is determined by analogy of Article 35(1)3(c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, i.e., when the due date notified in the notice of payment is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da70605, Dec. 9

(2) According to the above facts, the time limit for payment of value-added tax under the attached Tables 1 and 2 is prior to the date of establishment of the right to collateral security, and the defendant only seeks additional and increased additional charges until February 24, 2010, which is prior to the date of establishment of the right to collateral security, and there is no ground to acknowledge that the plaintiff's claim is priority. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

C. Additional tax portion

(1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation right and the realization of a taxation right, additional tax is a kind of administrative sanction imposing on a taxpayer who violates an obligation under the tax law without justifiable reason. For the convenience of collection procedure, it is merely a collection of additional tax by adding the principal tax amount calculated under the tax law to the principal tax amount. Since the national tax determined under the tax law is in essence different from that determined under the tax law, the imposition of additional tax is separate from the imposition of principal tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7520, Oct. 26, 2001).

(2) According to the above facts, among the principal tax of KRW 9,818,50 of the attached Table 2, the additional tax of KRW 8,778,500, which was excluded from the principal tax of KRW 1,040,00 of the value-added tax was notified on June 28, 2010 (the defendant did not seek additional tax of KRW 12,848,493) after the date of establishment of the Plaintiff’s right of interest (the defendant did not seek additional tax of KRW 12,848,493), and the above additional tax of KRW 8,78,50 shall not be deemed to have priority over the Plaintiff’

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the amount that the Defendant is entitled to preferential dividends to the Plaintiff is KRW 66,615,390 ( KRW 2,906,010 in Paragraph (1) + KRW 87,180 in + KRW 802,010 in + KRW 294,550 in + KRW 294,550 in + KRW 235,640 in + KRW 61,250,00 in KRW 66,615,390 in the above distribution schedule, and the amount of dividends to the Defendant is corrected to KRW 12,931,588 in 40,059,828 in 1,00 in 66,615,390 in the above distribution schedule.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.