Whether a senior seizure authority or a request for delivery is made for unjust enrichment;

Since the head of a tax office has the effect of demanding a delivery of national taxes which take precedence over the defendants who are the persons having the authority to request a provisional seizure or a demand for distribution, the junior persons shall return only the delinquent tax amount due to a request for the seizure.

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. Defendant ○ Bank, ○○ Bank, Co., Ltd., ○○○○ Bank, ○○ Capital, ○○○○○ Fund, and ○○○○○○○ Federation shall transfer each of the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 2 to the Plaintiff, and notify the Republic of Korea (competent district court deposit officials) of the purport of the said transfer.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. From November 25, 2005, Defendant ○○○ Co., Ltd.: 7,813,373 won and its related thereto:

B. From November 26, 2005, Defendant ○○○○○○○○, 5,907,467 won and its related amount:

C. From November 25, 2005, 2005, Defendant ○○○○○○○○ means KRW 2,839,360;

D. Defendant ○○○○ shall have 7,713,943 won and its related amount from December 1, 2005

By January 30, 2007, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid respectively.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendants.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant ○○○ Bank, ○○○ Bank, Co., Ltd., Ltd., ○○○○○○○○ Bank, ○○○○○○○ Fund, and ○○○○○○○○○○ Federation shall transfer to each Plaintiff the claims listed in attached Table 1, and notify the Plaintiff of the purport of the above transfer to the Republic of Korea (competent district court deposit officials). Defendant ○○○○ Insurance Co., Ltd., from November 25, 2005, 11,63,533 won and its related expenses from November 26, 2005 to 8,795,780 won and its related expenses, from November 26, 2005 to 4,227,596 won and its related expenses from the following day to November 25, 2005; Defendant ○○○○○○○○ Federation, from the day after 2005 to the day of 25% annual payment of the complaint to 25% from the day of each of this case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○, ○-○ ○○, 615.5 square meters, and 2 stories above ground owned by ○○○○○○○○○, on December 20, 1996, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on the basis of the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million,00,000,000, and the debtor ○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○○”). The establishment registration was completed on April 16, 1997, which was the establishment registration of a mortgage-holder, and the establishment registration was completed on the part of the debtor ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○”).

B. On November 22, 2000, 2000, the head of ○○○○-dong and the building on the ground that ○○○○ was in arrears with taxes of KRW 44,924,272, including the total amount of value-added tax of KRW 40,184,702 and the additional amount of KRW 4,739,570 on August 24, 200, the head of ○○○-dong and the building on the ground that ○○○○ was in arrears with taxes of KRW 44,924,272. On November 222, 2000, the head of ○○○-dong and the attachment registration was completed under the Plaintiff’s name on November 24, 200.

C. The Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ Federation filed an application for voluntary auction with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the above ○○-dong and the second floor building on the ground of the delayed repayment of the loan obligation, and the voluntary auction procedure commenced on April 13, 2005 following the above court’s order to commence the auction procedure.

D. In the above auction interruption, from 574,332,266 won which was the date of distribution, to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a mortgagee-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage 13,00 won, including KRW 13,377,610, a sum of KRW 261,37,610, a sum of KRW 13,000,000, which was the mortgagee-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-based.

E. Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ received each dividend on November 24, 2005; November 25, 2005; and Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ Fund received each of the dividends on November 30, 2005.

F. On December 13, 2005, pursuant to Article 160(1) of the Civil Execution Act, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2005, each of the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea at the same court in 2005, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2005, Defendant ○○○○○○ in 2005, Defendant ○○○○ in 2005, with an annual gold title in 2005, Defendant ○○○○○○ in 2005, with an annual cash title in 2005, with an annual cash title in 205, ○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 205, 205, 205, and 200, 205, 2005, 205, 2005.

G. After that, Defendant ○○○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○, etc.”) filed a lawsuit of demurrer against each of the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the Changwon District Court 2005Gahap 2005Gahap○, Changwon District Court 2006, and each of the said decisions became final and conclusive around that time.

H. According to the above decisions, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute dividends of KRW 102,059,476 in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 68,84,323, and KRW 33,089,273, which was the date of distribution, to the extent that the distribution was actually made, with the exception of KRW 125,80, which was the date of distribution.

Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, based on recognition

2. Determination

In light of the following, the head of a tax office's request for the delivery of national taxes to an auction court pursuant to Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act is identical in nature to the demand for distribution in the real estate auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act. Thus, the request for delivery of national taxes may be made only by the completion period for the demand for distribution, as well as the demand for distribution. However, if the seizure is registered as a procedure for the disposition of national taxes in respect of the auction real estate, the request for delivery shall be deemed effective. In this case, if the head of a tax office fails to submit evidential documents capable of calculating the delinquent amount of national taxes by the completion period for the request for distribution, the court of auction may investigate the delinquent amount of national taxes pursuant to the relevant request for the relevant attachment registration and distribute the dividends. The execution of dividends pursuant to the finalized distribution schedule does not confirm the rights under the substantive law, and if a person who is liable for receiving the distribution receives the dividends without receiving the distribution, the preferential creditor who has failed to receive the distribution shall have the right to claim for the return

According to the facts of this case, the value-added tax imposed on the property in arrears prior to the decision of commencement of the above auction is effective as a national tax which takes precedence over the defendants who are the persons having the right to a provisional seizure or a right to demand a distribution, and thus, the auction court shall investigate the delinquent tax pursuant to the registration request of seizure, attachment report, etc. pursuant to Article 84(4) and (5) of the Civil Execution Act, and distribute 4,924,272 won, which is the delinquent tax amount registered to the plaintiff which takes precedence over the defendants based on the registration request of seizure, attachment report, etc., and if the defendants received it or deposited the dividends with the defendants who are the junior right holders, the defendants did not distribute it, but did not pay it, and if the defendants received it or deposited the dividends to the defendants who are the junior right holders, the above amount was unjustly obtained without any legal grounds and suffered damages equivalent to

However, as of January 4, 2006, the Plaintiff asserts that the total amount of delinquent taxes exceeds 66,88,910 won, including the additional dues, and that it is unjust enrichment. However, as seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff did not make a demand for distribution at the auction procedure by the deadline for demanding distribution, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the part exceeding 44,924,272 won, which is the delinquent tax amount in a request for attachment registration, is without merit.

Accordingly, if 268,030,384 won remaining after deducting 44,924,272 won, which should have been distributed to the Plaintiff from 312,954,656 won, which would have been distributed to the fourth distribution right holders of the instant dividends, is distributed proportionally in proportion to the amount of claims in the column for the amount of claims in the column for the amount of claims in the attached Table 3 of the distribution right holders, the amount of dividends in the attached Table 4 is as stated in the separate sheet. If the amount of dividends in the revised list in the above list in the above list in the same column is deducted from each amount of dividends in the above list in the same column, the difference in the same table is stated in the separate sheet 2 among the dividends deposited accordingly.

Therefore, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○ Association shall transfer to each Plaintiff the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, and notify the Plaintiff of the purport of the above transfer to the Republic of Korea (competent public officials of ○○○○ District Court). From November 25, 2005, Defendant ○○○○ Guarantee Fund shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 7,813,373 as well as its related KRW 5,907,467 as well as its related KRW 5,907,467 as of November 26, 2005; Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association shall pay 2,839,360 won as well as delay damages from November 25, 2005 to November 20, 2005; Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Fund shall be liable to pay each of the above disputes over the existence and the scope of each of the obligations set forth in the Civil Act from 30% to 27.10%.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the above recognition law, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.