Where a seizure registration for a disposition on default has been completed prior to the registration of the commencement of auction on real estate;

As long as the Defendant completed the registration of seizure on the source of money in arrears before the registration of the commencement of the voluntary auction in this case, the Defendant is entitled to receive dividends in the dividend procedure in this case not later than the above additional dividends, and the remaining dividends that do not reach the claim amount in the registration of seizure, prior to the Plaintiff

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015 grouped 123081 Objection against distribution

1. KimA

1. Korea;

April 7, 2016

May 12, 2016

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 case of applying for auction of real estate (duplicates), this Court shall rectify the dividend amount of KRW 172,298,412 to the plaintiff and KRW 172,29,298,412 to KRW 172,29,412 to the amount of the dividend of the plaintiff in the additional dividend table prepared on June 30, 2015 by this Court (hereinafter referred to as the "voluntary auction of this case"), from 2010 to 5429,201 to 1408,412 to KRW 0.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 201, the instant court: (a) prepared a distribution schedule in the instant voluntary auction procedure on the OO-dong OO-dong 000-0 large scale 430 square meters and 000-0 large scale 2,277 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) as to the same O-dong 00-0 large scale 2,277 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) owned by ParkCC on June 24, 201; (b) distributed a dividend of KRW 2,780,940 to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant-affiliated BB among the dividends remaining after preferentially distributing dividends to the mortgagee;

B. ParkCC filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with this Court 201Gahap12920 regarding the dividend amount that was made to DaD. On October 4, 2013, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of ParkCC, and ParkCC appealed and appealed with Seoul High Court 2013Na71960. The Seoul High Court rendered a judgment on September 26, 2014 that "the court shall delete the dividend amount of DaD out of the dividend table prepared for the instant voluntary auction on June 24, 2011," and the Supreme Court appealed against DoD as 2014Da71385, but the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal on March 20, 2015 and became final and conclusive.

C. On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with ParkCC to transfer KRW 177,00,000 to the Plaintiff out of the dividend claim held in the instant voluntary auction proceeding. On the same day, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant (a public official in charge of this court deposit) of the purport thereof.

D. As the above judgment was rendered on June 30, 2015, this Court carried out the additional distribution of the instant voluntary auction procedure. In preparing the said additional distribution schedule, the court distributed KRW 172,298,412, which is the total amount of dividends, to the director of the tax office affiliated with the Defendant, and excluded the Plaintiff from the dividends.

E. In the said additional distribution procedure, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the dividend amount to the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on July 6, 2015, which is within one week from the said additional distribution procedure.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Claim of this case

On June 24, 2011, when the first distribution was made, the Defendant received the total amount of KRW 2,780,940 as a seizure right holder, and did not have any other tax claims other than the said dividend amount at that time. When making an additional distribution, the Defendant reported a tax claim amount of KRW 85,376,120. The Defendant’s above KRW 172,298,412, which was paid to the Defendant, was a bond not seized or reported by the first distribution date of this case. Since the tax claims arising after the first distribution date clearly became a tax claim after the first distribution date and there was no reason to receive additional dividends in the dividend procedure of this case, the Defendant’s additional distribution was to be excluded, and the distribution schedule should be corrected to the effect that the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim of ParkCC, is distributed to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

In case where a registration of seizure by a disposition on default has been completed prior to the registration of the commencement of auction on real estate prior to the date of commencement of auction, even if the State does not make a request for delivery under Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act, the registration becomes effective as a matter of course as to the demand for distribution under the Civil Procedure Act. In this case, if the State fails to submit evidential documents capable of calculating the amount in arrears by the date of successful bid, the court of auction shall investigate and distribute the amount in arrears pursuant to the relevant written request for the registration of seizure. In such a case, even if there was a report on the amount in arrears prior to the date of successful bid, the State may again submit the corrected evidentiary documents, etc., until the distribution schedule is prepared. The auction court shall calculate the amount in excess of the reported amount prior to the date of successful bid under the above seizure registration within the scope of the requested amount under the above documents and evidence, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da1055, Jan. 25, 20

Based on the above legal principles, the instant case is examined. The Defendant is based on the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the Defendant completed the registration of seizure of each of the instant real estate on March 17, 2011, before the completion of the registration of the entry on the decision of voluntary commencement of auction of the instant case on May 18, 201. At the time, the amount of arrears of ParkCC amounted to KRW 568,395,480, and the Defendant’s BB director of the tax office under the jurisdiction of the Defendant requested delivery of KRW 587,920,40 to the instant court on June 10, 201. The above facts are significant. As long as the Defendant completed the registration of seizure of KRW 587,920,440 prior to the registration of the commencement of voluntary commencement of auction of the instant case, the Defendant is entitled to receive the entire amount of the instant dividends in preference to the aforementioned additional dividends registration procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of the cause of the claim of this case is without merit on different premises.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.