Whether a claim created as a collateral after the statutory deadline for national taxes takes precedence over the national taxes;

Even if the existence of a taxation claim is not publicly announced as the register for the secured right holder, etc., if the statutory due date for the taxation claim becomes the date for the issuance of a tax payment notice, the order for the payment of dividend shall be determined by the date of

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 35 (Preference of National Taxes)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on February 28, 2008, the amount of KRW 113,138,610 to the defendant shall be changed to KRW 0, and KRW 113,138,610 to KRW 113,138,610 to KRW 113,610 shall be changed to KRW 113,610, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The land and the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter the instant real estate) had been registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty ○○○○○○○, but on November 22, 2006, the registration for the establishment of the second priority mortgage was completed on the basis of the obligor’s transfer, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000.

B. On September 3, 2007, 2007, upon the application of ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, a first-class collateral security (hereinafter “○○ Agricultural Cooperative”), the decision to commence auction was rendered by Suwon District Court Decision 2007Ma37072, and on March 19, 2008, the Defendant’s registration of seizure was completed.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant issued a tax notice on February 1, 2004 on the interim prepayment of KRW 61,158,959, and KRW 13,607,867 (the aggregate of the amount of the penalty taxes and the additional taxes for unfaithful return), and KRW 74,766,820 in total, and issued a tax notice to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 2,325,750 for the global income tax for KRW 2,325,7

D. On August 28, 2008, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule concerning the instant real estate. Of the amount to be actually distributed, the court distributed to the Defendant the amount of KRW 2,935,731,410, the amount of KRW 35,362,470, total income tax, global income tax, and additional charges therefor, and KRW 113,138,610 (including additional taxes), totaling KRW 683,570, + 2,325,750 + + 33,362,470 + 683,570 + 683,570 + totaling the amount of KRW 113,136,820, totaling the amount of KRW 683,570.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution on August 28, 2008, and stated an objection to the amount of distribution of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 2, 2008, within seven days thereafter.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution on August 28, 2008, and stated an objection to the amount of distribution of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 2, 2008, within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers of evidence Nos. 3 and 4) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the legislative intent of Article 35 (1) 3 (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if the government makes a decision on the tax base and the amount of tax are corrected, decided, or imposed occasionally, the date on which a tax notice is sent" shall take precedence over the third party when the tax authority announces that a tax claim exists, such as the registration of the seizure of a tax obligor's real estate, and thus, the legal deadline shall take precedence over the third party, so long as the registration of the seizure was made after the plaintiff's registration of the seizure, the plaintiff

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the amount of additional dues should be distributed to the defendant, as long as the above procedure is not implemented, since the payment notice and confirmation procedure are required separate from the principal tax.

B. Determination

First of all, we examine the Plaintiff’s argument on the interpretation of statutory due date under the Framework Act on National Taxes. To promote harmony between the principle of national tax priority and the order of financial transactions by private law, the standard of friendlyness between the taxation claims and the security interest shall be clearly determined by law on the line in harmony between the public interest that recognized the priority of taxation and the protection of the security interest. The standard period shall be determined by law, and the time when the secured party can confirm the existence and scope of taxation claims and the tax authority cannot be arbitrarily changed by the tax authority, which shall be determined by rational judgment. However, the first priority of national tax claims is determined on the basis of the “date of report” or “date of delivery of the notice of tax payment”, or the “date of delivery of the notice of tax payment” cannot be said to undermine the predictability of the secured party or to infringe on the property rights of the secured party (see Constitutional Court Decision 2005HunBa60, May 31, 2007). Therefore, even if the existence of the tax claim is not publicly announced as the secured right holder, the statutory due date of tax payment should be determined after the date of the date.

Meanwhile, in this case, the delivery date of the Defendant’s notice of transfer income tax and additional tax tax payment on February 1, 2004 is November 1, 2005, and the Plaintiff’s establishment date of the right to collateral security was as seen earlier, and as long as the delivery date of each Defendant’s notice is earlier than the establishment date of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security, the Defendant has the right to preferentially pay dividends to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Then, we examine the plaintiff's assertion as to the amount of additional dues and increased additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act. If national taxes are not paid by the due date, it is a kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date, it is naturally occurring under Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act, and if it is not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date, it is possible to urge the payment of the due date in accordance with the reminder (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2013 delivered on September 22, 200), No. 3-1, No. 3-2, No. 4-1, No. 2-1, and No. 2, the purport of arguments in the whole arguments, and therefore, the defendant can be acknowledged to have dispatched the notice demanding the payment of each additional dues on February 1, 2004 and No. 11, 205.

Conclusion

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