The head of a tax office may not deem that he/she has the right to prepare the revised distribution statement.

After the confirmation of the distribution statement for a public auction, the head of a tax office has the authority to re-examine whether the contents of the distribution statement are consistent with the substantive rights relationship, or to revise the distribution statement at will on the grounds that there are parts different from the substantive rights relationship through such investigation.

Objection to distribution statement under Article 83-2 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016Guhap2249 Prohibited from distribution by public sale

Park ○

Korea

April 14, 2017

May 12, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,721,600 won with 15% interest per annum from August 25, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The progress of the auction procedure on the instant real estate

1) On September 20, 1999, ○○○○ Forest (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) is the owner of the forest in Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and on September 20, 199, the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “right to collateral security”) with respect to the instant real estate as KRW 260,000,000,000,000,000

The registration of establishment was completed.

2) On October 18, 2013, the head of the ○○ Tax Office completed the registration of attachment based on the disposition on default on the instant real estate pursuant to Article 24(1) of the National Tax Collection Act on the grounds of delinquency in taxation by ○○○ Tax Office.

3) Under Article 61(5) of the National Tax Collection Act, the Korea Asset Management Corporation conducted a public auction procedure on behalf of the head of ○○○ Tax Office for the instant real estate pursuant to Article 61(5). The Korea Asset Management Corporation prepared a distribution statement (hereinafter referred to as “the first distribution statement”) that allocates KRW 58,56,740 to 746,740, respectively, in the first priority order of the amount to be distributed on July 16, 2014, 206, KRW 2,066,320, and KRW 40,000 in the second priority order of 0,000 in the ○○ Military Office, ○○○, ○○,76,820, and the second priority order of the distribution date.

(b) Objection to distribution by ○○ and withdrawal thereof;

1) As ○○○○ filed an objection to the distribution of B/L on the date of distribution, the Korea Asset Management Corporation delivered each distribution amount to the remaining distribution right holders except the instant distribution amount on B/L, and remitted 5,710,000 won to the head of ○○ Tax Office on July 25, 2014 pursuant to Article 175(5) of the Regulations on the Management of Collection of National Taxes, which was subject to distribution. The head of ○○ Tax Office deposited this amount as the government custody pursuant to Article 84(1) of the National Tax Collection Act.

2) The ○○ withdrawn the objection on July 28, 2014.

C. Refusal of payment by the director of ○○ Tax Office and progress of related litigation

1) On July 1, 2014, Between Before transferring the claim (58,520,000 won) that he/she acquired in the public auction procedure for the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and notified the Korea Asset Management Corporation of the assignment of the said claim.

2) On July 28, 2014, the Korea Asset Management Corporation: (a) requested ○○○○ to withdraw an objection; (b) on July 28, 2014, 5,721,620 won (e.g., distribution amount of KRW 55,710,00 and interest accrued at KRW 11,620) of the reserved distribution amount, along with a written request for withdrawal of objection and assignment of assignment of claims; and (c) to deposit the reserved distribution amount into the Plaintiff’s account; and (d) to notify the result of the settlement of payment. However, the head of ○○ Tax Office

3) On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the Korea Asset Management Corporation seeking the payment of the above transfer money. However, on August 7, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment of retirement on the ground that the payment of the transfer money ought to be contested by administrative litigation. The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal, and the said court rendered a judgment that the case transferred on January 13, 2016 to the Seoul Administrative Court, the competent court.

4) However, on May 19, 2016, the Seoul Administrative Court sentenced the Seoul Administrative Court to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the Korea Asset Management Corporation is not the subject to the allocation of the instant amount, and thus was not the subject to the allocation of the instant amount, and thus, the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 3, 2016.

5) On May 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of the instant amount to the head of ○○ Tax Office. However, on June 16, 2016, the head of ○○ Tax Office rejected the application on the ground that the circumstance that the ○○○○○, prior to the instant allocation date, fully repaid the secured obligation of the said mortgage.

D. Filing the instant lawsuit and preparing a revised statement of distribution by the head of ○○ Tax Office

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, which is a party suit under public law, seeking the payment of the instant amount against the Defendant, according to the above Seoul Administrative Court ruling that the subject to whom the instant amount is reverted is the Defendant.

2) On February 2, 2017, the Defendant, while proceeding in the instant case, prepared a distribution statement (hereinafter referred to as “revision distribution statement”) that allocates KRW 5,721,620 in the amount to be distributed around February 2017 (i.e., KRW 55,710,00 + deposited interest KRW 11,620) with the first priority of expenses for disposition on default, KRW 2,066,320, KRW 40 in the ○○ Military Office as the second priority, KRW 40,760, and KRW 746,740 in the ○○ Military Office as the third priority of KRW 740, KRW 5,721,620 in the ○○ Tax Office as the fourth priority.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 6 to 16, and Eul evidence 1 to 5

The purpose of the whole theory

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Article 175 (6) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Collection Affairs provides that "the director of the tax office shall pay the amount reserved by distribution under Paragraph (5) 1 after the final decision is made by the holder of the right." Thus, the procedure for allocation of the proceeds of public sale shall be filed against the administrative agency in order to seek its revocation as an administrative procedure, and the lawsuit of this case shall not be filed against the Republic of

B. Determination

The lawsuit of this case constitutes a party lawsuit under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act by exercising the right to claim payment under public law against the Republic of Korea, which is keeping the amount distributed on the basis of the initial distribution statement prepared by the plaintiff to pay the amount of money to Boom Before the plaintiff. In such a case, the Korea Asset Management Corporation or the head of ○○ Tax Office is merely an institution dealing with the public sale procedures, and it is not a managing entity of proceeds or shares in accordance with the public sale procedures. In addition, the initial distribution statement is prepared as the content of the initial distribution statement, and where the initial distribution statement becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant, the managing entity of the final and conclusive distribution statement, is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff according to the content of the original distribution statement. Thus, the head of ○○ Tax Office, notwithstanding the content of the initial distribution statement, cannot be deemed a rejection disposition, which is an administrative act, to refuse the payment of the amount distributed. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case seeking the payment of the amount distributed in accordance with the original distribution statement by the

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The Korea Asset Management Corporation reserved the payment of the instant amount to ○○○○ in the instant public sale procedure, and reserved the said amount as the Government’s custody by remitting the said amount to ○○ Tax Office without reservation. However, since ○○○○○ withdrawn an objection to the distribution, the initial distribution statement prepared by the Korea Asset Management Corporation is finalized as it was the original, and accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of the instant amount. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is in custody of the instant amount, is obliged under the public law to pay it to the Plaintiff. As such, even though the distribution statement was finalized, on the ground that the obligation against collateral was extinguished due to the repayment of the instant amount.

class may not be refused.

2) Defendant

Article 175(5)1 and (6) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Collection Affairs (National Tax Directive No. 2178) provide that the amount reserved for distribution due to an objection to distribution shall be paid by the right holder after the final decision is made by the right holder. However, as a result of the tracking investigation conducted after the objection by ○○○○ was raised, this ○○ was found to have repaid all the secured claims of the instant right to collateral on September 9, 2013, prior to the distribution date. Since the Defendant examines who is the right holder of the reserved amount, and pays it after the lawful right holder becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant cannot pay the instant amount to the Plaintiff insofar as the secured claims of the instant right are fully repaid and extinguished.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 61(5) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the head of a tax office deems it necessary to have expertise in the public auction of attached property or when he/she deems it inappropriate to sell it directly due to other special circumstances, he/she may have the Korea Asset Management Corporation conduct such public auction on his/her behalf, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In such cases, where the Korea Asset Management Corporation conducts the public auction of attached property pursuant to paragraph (5), "the head of a tax office" shall be deemed "Korea Asset Management Corporation". The proviso to Article 80(1) provides that where Article 61(5) or 62(2) is applicable, the Korea Asset Management Corporation may distribute the attached property on his/her behalf. In such cases, Article 83(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the Korea Asset Management Corporation shall prepare the original distribution statement and keep it within seven days prior to the distribution date of the original distribution, and that the amount of money distributed to the person who holds the tax office or the head of a tax office under Article 83-2(1) provides that the original distribution statement shall be distributed within three days prior to the final distribution date.

2) In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the contents and purport of the above provisions, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, as seen earlier, were all included in the above provisions, and the original distribution statement is finalized as the original copy by withdrawal of an objection to the distribution by ○○○, and the head of ○○ Tax Office has no authority to reverse the objection and make the revised distribution statement with any other content. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff according to the contents of the original distribution statement that became final and conclusive.

A) Article 83-2(3) of the National Tax Collection Act explicitly states that where there is no objection on the distribution statement as the original document if there is no objection on the distribution statement, even if there is no objection or objection within the distribution date, the original document of the distribution statement shall be finalized immediately if there is no objection. Therefore, once the distribution statement becomes final and conclusive, the head of the tax office shall pay the distribution amount to the right holder under the distribution statement, and there is no authority to separately investigate the legal relationship and change the already-determined distribution statement. If such interpretation is not made, the head of the tax office may reject the payment of the distribution amount for the applicant who is suspected of the existence or absence of the legal relationship by investigating the substantive relationship between the distribution applicants even though the objection procedure on the distribution statement was completed and the distribution statement became final and conclusive. Therefore, it is likely to seriously undermine the legal stability between the interested parties surrounding the distribution statement under the public sale procedure.

B) Article 175(5)1 and (6) of the Regulations on the Collection of National Taxes stipulate that “The amount reserved for distribution has been paid after the final determination of the right holder due to an objection to the distribution.”

However, even if there is an objection against distribution, the remaining delinquent taxpayers, etc. excluding the objection raised.

Civil execution, if an objection is raised, the part on the immediate determination and the distribution is carried out immediately.

In the auction procedure to which the law applies, a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is scheduled, but such procedure is identical thereto.

In the case of a public auction procedure without express provision, the ordinary claimant against the relevant creditor

A person who has the right to the amount distributed according to the result of the lawsuit by filing a civil lawsuit concerning the relationship of the right to receive the amount.

Article 3-2 (6) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that if an interested party proves that he/she has filed a lawsuit against a lessee, etc. within seven days from the filing date of an objection, the agency which received a request for allocation shall withhold the repayment of the deposit for the lessee, etc. to the extent that the objection is filed until the lawsuit is completed. In such cases, the reserved deposit shall be divided according to the result of the lawsuit." In light of the circumstances, such as the explicit provision that the reserved deposit shall be divided according to the result of the lawsuit, it is reasonable to interpret that the above provision of the provision on the collection of national taxes stipulates that the amount reserved for allocation is to be paid by the head of a tax office, who is the manager of the distributed amount,

Therefore, as long as ○○○ and ○○, who raised an objection to the instant dividend amount, voluntarily withdrawn the objection, and the final right holder with respect to the reversion of the dividend amount, is confirmed to be Bebbbal (or the Plaintiff), the Defendant is obligated to immediately pay the instant dividend amount to the Plaintiff in accordance with the above provisions.

C) According to the Defendant’s assertion (see preparatory document dated March 27, 2017) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17528, Mar. 27, 2017), the Korea Asset Management Corporation shall transfer the amount reserved for distribution to a financial institution account designated in the competent tax office pursuant to Article 175(5)1 and (6) of the Regulations on the Management of National Taxes to the account of the relevant tax office. When the amount of distribution is accepted, the Korea Asset Management Corporation shall revise the distribution statement, and request the head of the agency to pay the distribution amount according to the revised distribution statement. When the objection is dismissed, he/she shall send the document confirming the initial distribution statement to the interested parties and the delinquent taxpayer and the head of the agency and request the head of the agency to pay the distribution amount according to the initial distribution statement (see, e.g., the procedure for the public sale of seized property by Korea Asset Management Corporation). In accordance with the Defendant’s assertion, even if the distribution is accepted in the case of the public sale agency

The head of the agency shall, at the request of the Korea Asset Management Corporation, have the right to distribute the amount reserved;

In this case, the Korea Asset Management Corporation shall raise an objection in accordance with the above practical practice.

In addition, the head of ○○ Tax Office requested the payment of the instant amount to the head of ○○ Tax Office.

D) (1) The Defendant asserts that the head of a tax office has the right to directly revise the distribution statement prepared by the Korea Asset Management Corporation so that his tax claim is not infringed upon by the invalid priority of mortgage, even if he requested a public sale and distribution to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, even if he requested a public sale and distribution by proxy.

However, as seen earlier, the head of a tax office cannot be deemed to have the authority to arbitrarily revise the distribution statement on the grounds that the contents of the distribution statement are consistent with the substantive rights and obligations of the parties, or that there are parts different from those of the substantive rights through such investigation. Rather, Article 83-2(4) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "where the original distribution statement can be prepared by modifying the original distribution statement, the content of the "when the original distribution statement is deemed legitimate or when there is an agreement between the defaulted taxpayer, etc." Articles 61(6) and 83 of the same Act provide that the Korea Asset Management Corporation shall prepare the original distribution statement and keep it at least seven days prior to the distribution date (paragraphs 2 and 3) and shall provide it for perusal and reproduction of the original distribution statement (paragraphs 2 and 4). The above provision appears to have derived from the purport that the Korea Asset Management Corporation may not arbitrarily receive the distribution statement prior to the expiration of the distribution statement by taking into account the right and obligations of many interested parties (the head of a tax office may, under Article 175(1) of the Korea Asset Management Corporation Act).

E) In addition, the head of a tax office shall allocate the proceeds from sale to the secured party according to the order of priority, barring any special circumstance such as clearly null and void, with regard to the amount for which the secured party related to the attached property files an application for distribution along with the submission of evidentiary documents within the maximum amount of the secured claim, and in such a case, he/she may not refuse the request for distribution of the secured party solely on the ground that the secured party’s objection was raised (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7580, Dec. 22, 1992). Even in accordance with the report on the completion of the tracking investigation (Evidence No. 4), the above tracking investigation is merely a result of the suspicion of concealing the high-amount delinquent debtor’s property. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that ○○○ was clearly proven that the instant secured mortgage became null and void by fully paying the secured debt of the instant case to the B

D. Sub-committee

In full view of the above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,710,00 of the instant distribution amount and its deposited interest KRW 11,6201) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 25, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

4. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.