Where the tax base and amount of local taxes are voluntarily reported, but the actual payment is not made, the statutory date of payment = the statutory date of payment.

If a local government voluntarily reported the tax base and amount of local tax but failed to pay it actually, the tax liability becomes final and conclusive when the local government determines the tax base and amount of tax pursuant to Article 30(1)2 of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the statutory due date is the date the local

Articles 30(1) and 31 of the Local Tax Act

New Bank Co., Ltd.

Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Ahn-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on March 26, 1998 with respect to the case of applying for an auction of real estate auction as provided in the Seoul District Court Decision 97 YY21994, the dividend amount of KRW 122,45,419 against the defendant shall be corrected to KRW 2,773,840, and KRW 119,681,579, respectively.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or they can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-1 and 2, and there is no counter-proof.

(a) Preparation of distribution schedule;

(1) On January 13, 1995, the non-party general construction company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party general construction company") started the new construction of the building with the third underground floors, the nine floors above ground, the total floor area of 9,934.23 square meters above the 6th ground in Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "the building of this case"). On July 15, 1996, the construction of the building of this case was completed and completed on July 18, 1996.

(2) On July 30, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the real estate on the attached list, which is part of the building of this case, on July 30, 1996, as the Seoul District Court Decision No. 60877, which was received on July 30, 1996 from North Korea Branch of the Seoul District Court, with respect to the real estate on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the auction object of this case”).

(3) After that, the non-party company did not repay the above loan obligations, the plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with this court for the instant real estate based on the foregoing right to collateral security at around 97ta and 2194. On November 28, 200, the plaintiff won was awarded to the non-party Kim Jong-young at KRW 160,570,000.

(4) In the distribution procedure of the above real estate auction application case, the defendant submitted a claim statement stating the amount of KRW 138,802,100 as the claim amount on February 27, 1998, and the plaintiff submitted a claim statement stating the amount of the credit amount of KRW 107,00,000,000 as the principal amount, interest amount of KRW 20,925,094 as interest, and interest amount of KRW 3,068,640 as the provisional payment amount of KRW 130,93,734 as the claim amount around March of the same year.

(5) On March 26, 1998, the court prepared a distribution schedule of 161,419,779 won (=160,570,00 +849,779) plus 849,779 won, plus 161,45,419 won (161,419,779-2,964,360), which is the remainder of the actual amount of dividends that remains after deducting 2,964,360 won for enforcement expenses). The court prepared a distribution schedule of 158,45,419 won (161,419,779-2,964,360), which is the small lessee of the small amount of money (12,00,000 won, respectively, and the amount of dividends against the Defendant shall be 122,45,419 won.

(b) Determination of voluntary declarations and taxes;

(1) On July 16, 1996, the non-party company considered the tax base amount of the building of this case as KRW 3,30,00,000,000, and calculated as KRW 73,260,000, and the registration tax amount as KRW 31,968,00,000, and filed a voluntary report to the defendant's office. The non-party company paid the registration tax amount of KRW 31,968,00 among them on the same day, but did not pay the acquisition tax.

(2) After examining the tax base, the Defendant determined that the amount of the tax base of the instant building was KRW 4,006,756,402, and the Defendant issued acquisition tax as KRW 568,565,085 [this case’s legitimate acquisition tax base amount and KRW 676,756,402, which is the difference between the tax base amount reported by the non-party company and the tax base amount reported by the non-party company 676,756,402 [4,006,756,402-3,330,000] calculated as KRW 118,191,317,565, which is the remainder after deducting the tax base amount from KRW 558,565,085 as the tax base amount, but the acquisition tax amount was determined as KRW 568,565,085 as the erroneous calculation]; the acquisition tax amount was determined as KRW 14,986,80,4086,5084].

2. Dividends to the defendant;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff filed a voluntary declaration of acquisition tax, which is a kind of local tax for which tax base and tax return are determined, and if it is not actually paid, the date when the competent authority determines the tax base and tax amount due after the period for voluntary declaration expires, and send a notice of payment. Thus, the statutory due date of acquisition tax on the building of this case after August 13, 1996, at least 30 days have passed from the date of completion inspection, and the defendant sent a notice of payment to the non-party company to the non-party company. The legal due date of acquisition tax of KRW 14,896,400 and registration tax of KRW 6,458,890, which was additionally imposed by the defendant according to the legitimate acquisition tax base on November 12 of the same year shall be November 12 of the same year. Since all of these dates have been completed on July 30 of the same year, the remaining portion of acquisition tax excluding the relevant tax shall not have priority over the claims secured by the mortgage of this case.

In this regard, the defendant determined the amount of acquisition tax according to the details reported by the non-party company at the time of reporting the amount of acquisition tax and delivered it to the non-party company. In this case, the legal due date of acquisition tax is the statutory due date if the amount of acquisition tax, which is a local tax, is not paid, and thus, the legal due date of acquisition tax in this case is the legal due date, which is the date before the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case was completed, and therefore, the acquisition tax of this case takes precedence over the bonds secured by

(b) Legal deadline for acquisition tax;

Whether each statutory period of the acquisition tax, the registration tax, and the acquisition tax originally imposed in the instant case is earlier than the date on which the establishment registration of the neighboring area in the instant case was completed.

Article 31 of the Local Tax Act provides that local taxes and additional dues (excluding local taxes and additional dues imposed on property) shall not apply to the claims secured by the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to pledge, and the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to pledge, and the right to lease on a deposit basis, if local taxes are collected from among the amounts arising from the sale of property which is the object of the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to pledge, and the mortgage established before the statutory due date, and Article 30 (1) provides that "the amount of local taxes shall be determined when the amount of taxes falls under any of the following subparagraphs," and subparagraph 1 provides that "when the taxpayer returns and pays local taxes for which the taxpayer pays the tax base and amount of taxes to the local government,"

Therefore, the statutory deadline for the failure to pay the tax base and tax amount as in this case shall be determined when the local government determines the tax base and tax amount pursuant to Article 30 (1) 2 of the Local Tax Act, and the date on which the local government dispatched a tax notice shall be the statutory deadline. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant sent a tax notice to the non-party company prior to July 30, 1996, on the sole basis of the descriptions in subparagraphs 8-1 and 2 of subparagraph B and the testimony of the witness Park Ho-hunon on the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, the statutory due date of the acquisition tax originally imposed after August 13, 1996, and the statutory due date of the registration tax and the acquisition tax additionally imposed shall be November 2, 1996, which was delivered to the non-party company by the defendant to the non-party company. Therefore, the remainder of the acquisition tax and the registration tax and the acquisition tax additionally imposed shall not take precedence over the plaintiff's claim secured by the mortgage of this case.

C. Calculation of dividend amount

The amount to be paid by the Defendant is limited to local taxes and additional dues imposed on the building of this case, i.e., the part to which the object of the auction of this case is to be borne. According to the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 20,66,550 won for the building of this case and additional dues thereon, acquisition tax amounting to KRW 87,246,00 for the building of this case, and KRW 20,06,550 for the building of this case, and the additional dues imposed thereon, KRW 14,896,40 for the acquisition tax of this case, and KRW 3,247,320 for the property tax of this case, KRW 6,458,810 for the property tax of this case, KRW 224,480 for the property tax of this case, and KRW 23,410 for additional dues, the total area of the property tax of this case and KRW 20,310 for the property tax of this case can be recognized as the total area of this case.

(a) Acquisition tax;

1. This tax

Amount of KRW 87,246,00 for the original return + Amount of KRW 14,896,400 = Amount of KRW 102,142,400 for the additional return

102,142,400 ¡¿ 131.12/6,934.23 =1,931,420

(2) Additional dues

Amount of KRW 20,066,550 for the original return + Amount of KRW 3,247,320 = Amount of KRW 23,313,870 for the additional return

23,313,870 ¡¿ 131.12/6,934.23 = 440,844

(3) A fraternity.

1,931,420 +40,844 =2,372,264

(b) Registration tax;

1. This tax

Additional dues 6,458,890 won ¡¿ 131.12/6,934.23 =12/131

(2) Additional dues

Additional dues 1,407,810 won ¡¿ 131.12/6,934.23 = 26,620

(3) A fraternity.

122,131 +26,620 =148,751

(3) Property tax

Principal tax amount 224,480 + additional tax amount 23,410 =247,890 won

(4) Joints;

2,372,264 +148,751 +247,890 =2,768,905

Therefore, the amount to be distributed to the defendant shall be KRW 2,768,905, and the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff shall be KRW 119,686,514.

3. Conclusion

Thus, although the defendant's taxation claim which takes precedence over the plaintiff's claim secured by the right to collateral security of this case at the time of the preparation of the distribution schedule of this case is 2,768,905 won, the part that exceeds the above remaining claim amount out of the dividend amount against the defendant of the distribution schedule of this case distributed under the premise that the defendant's taxation claim of this case exists in excess of the above remaining claim amount is unfair. Thus, it is reasonable to correct the dividend amount of 122,45,419 won against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared on March 26, 1998 by this court as to the case of an application for auction of real estate rent No. 21994 of this court, 122,45,419 won, and 2,773,840 won, and 00 won of the dividend amount against the plaintiff as the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff.

Judges Choi Jin-su (Presiding Judge)