Since the national tax claim takes precedence over the collection claim of the plaintiff, the distribution of deposit money is legitimate.

National tax claims shall take precedence over the plaintiff's claims for collection of the attached property, and therefore, it is legitimate to distribute the total amount of the deposit money.

2012 Gohap5628 Demurrer against distribution

IsaA

Korea

July 26, 2013

August 30, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the distribution procedure case in Busan District Court's East Branch 2012taro757, the dividend amount amount of the defendant's dividend among the dividend table prepared by the above court on December 20, 2012 shall be corrected to OOO, the plaintiff's dividend amount of OOOOO, and the plaintiff's dividend amount shall be corrected to OOOO.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s loan claims against KimB

(1) The plaintiff lent OB to KimB on or before September 2008. around July 2009, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against KimB on the above claim for loans (2009 Gohap3318). This court decided on October 22, 2009 in lieu of conciliation that "the payment of OB Won to the plaintiff by March 2, 2010" was confirmed on November 6, 2009." (2) On June 2, 2009, the plaintiff received a provisional attachment order from the court 2009Kadan2010 on June 2, 2007 for the above claim for loans and received a provisional attachment order from the court 2010 30% of the shares collected as the general partner of the CC (hereinafter referred to as "the above claim for provisional attachment order was omitted).

(4) On February 24, 2012, the Court rendered a judgment (hereinafter “the judgment in this case”) that “CC Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2012 to February 24, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment in this case”). On October 16, 2012, the Busan High Court (201Na3036) sentenced that it dismissed the appeal filed byCC Co., Ltd., and (b) the judgment in this case became final and conclusive around that time.”

(1) The Defendant has a total amount of OOO claims, such as value-added tax and capital gains tax, against KimB as follows.

See Table 3 of the Court Decision

(2) On February 23, 2012, the Defendant seized the instant equity shares to purify the value-added tax, and on April 10, 2012, seized the instant equity shares to collect the value-added tax and the capital gains tax for the portion reverted to the year 2009.

(c) Execution deposits byCC companies and the distribution of these courts;

(1) The Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned byCC company based on the above collection claim. On November 7, 2012,CC company deposited OOOOOE on a deposit basis.

(2) In the instant distribution procedure case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution procedure”), the Defendant filed a claim against the OOO in the amount of national taxes in arrears on November 27, 2012. On December 20, 2012, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the total amount of OOOO to the Defendant on the date of distribution.” (3) The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends on December 21, 2012, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on December 21, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that among the distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure of this case, the defendant's dividend amount amount amount of the defendant's OOOOO, the plaintiff's dividend amount of OOOOO should be corrected as OOOO. In other words,

① The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against CCTV in order to recover the loan claim against KimB. The Plaintiff spent approximately KRW OOO in order to appraise the instant equity shares in the lawsuit, and the time when the claim for retirement against KimB was exercised and the validity of the claim occurred. Accordingly, the instant judgment was rendered.

② The Defendant did not make any effort to withhold the instant equity shares in order to collect national tax claims against KimB. The Defendant participated in the instant distribution procedure, and the distribution schedule was prepared that the Defendant received the total amount of the shares in accordance with the principle of national tax priority. This constitutes an abuse of the right to taxation and thus, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to receive the dividends in the instant distribution procedure as it constitutes an abuse of the right to taxation and constitutes an abuse of the right to taxation.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant seized the shares of this case in order to collect national taxes (value-added tax and capital gains tax) around April 10, 2012, and the principal amount of delinquent tax is transferred to OOO won, part of it is merely paid out in the distribution procedure of this case, and the defendant's national tax claim takes precedence over the plaintiff's seizure and collection claim of this case. Thus, it is justifiable to distribute the total amount of deposit in the distribution procedure of this case to the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff's execution of the distribution procedure of this case was made as a result of efforts to seize and collect the shares of this case, and it cannot be said that the defendant abused the right to taxation or dividends against the defendant are unjust. Thus, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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