Before the date of registration of the establishment of a new mortgage, a claim on the legal date is higher than the claim secured by a mortgage.

Of the taxation claims claimed by Defendant Republic of Korea in the auction procedure of this case, the statutory due date is earlier than that of the registration of creation of a mortgage on the root of this case.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017 grouped 183444 Demurrer

KimA

Republic of Korea 2 others

October 26, 2017

November 21, 2017

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the 00 district court on July 20, 2017, the amount of 3,761,650 won for the defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the 00 tax office) and the amount of 315,623 won for the defendant 0 Metropolitan City 00, and the amount of 1,308,955 won for the defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the 00 tax office), shall be deleted, respectively, and the amount of dividends for the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 22,392,591 from KRW 22,778,81 to KRW 27,819.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 20% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff, 80% by the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 000 Insurance Corporation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 00 Metropolitan City 0 shall be borne by the Defendant

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend table prepared by the district court on July 20, 2017, the amount of dividends of KRW 8,543,090 to the defendant Republic of Korea (Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

1. As to the claim against the defendant 00 Metropolitan City 0

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

(a) Basic facts;

(i)registration of the collateral security and seizure;

A) On February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) consisting of the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million with respect to 00,000,000 apartment units (hereinafter referred to as “instant real property”) and KRW 000,000,000, which is owned by ParkCC (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”).

B) Defendant Republic of Korea (west00) completed the attachment registration of the instant real estate on June 14, 2016, and Defendant Republic of Korea (North 00) on February 15, 2017.

C) Defendant 000 Insurance Corporation completed the attachment registration on February 21, 2017.

2) Auction procedure

On October 4, 2016, at the request of 00 banks which are the mortgagee of the instant real estate.

The auction procedure of real estate was initiated by the district court 2016 another 00000.

3) Demand for distribution, request for delivery, etc.

A) On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted the claim statement, stating the principal of the claim as KRW 50 million, based on the instant collateral security at the above auction court (the Plaintiff did not state interest, expenses, etc. on the claim statement).

B) Defendant Republic of Korea (west00) requested the issuance of a taxation claim on June 19, 2017, and Defendant Republic of Korea (North 00) requested the above auction court on June 16, 2017 to deliver the taxation claim as follows:

C) On November 15, 2016, Defendant 00 Insurance Corporation demanded the above auction court to grant a total of KRW 12,704,150 as follows.

Of the above amount claimed, the payment deadline prior to February 23, 2016, which was the date of registering the establishment of the Plaintiff’s neighboring mortgage, is ① health care insurance premium 1,206,280 won, ② national pension 1,665,00 won, ③ employment insurance premium 246,450 won, ④ industrial accident insurance premium 543,420 won, ④ 3,61,150 won, total of 3,61,150 won.

4) On July 20, 2017, on the date of distribution of the said auction case, the distribution schedule was formulated with respect to the Plaintiff and the Defendants as follows (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

5) The Plaintiff, as a mortgagee, was present on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendants regarding the total amount of dividends distributed to the Defendants out of the instant distribution schedule on the date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on July 24, 2017.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

1) The date the Plaintiff’s establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case was made on February 23, 2016, and the date the seizure registration was made by Defendant Republic of Korea was delayed, and it was unlawful to distribute the claims of Defendant Republic of Korea to the Plaintiff in preference to the Plaintiff or in the same order with the Plaintiff.

2) Determination

A) Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a national tax surcharge or disposition fee for arrears shall be collected in preference to other public imposts or other claims, but this shall not apply to claims secured by a right to lease on a deposit basis, a pledge, or a mortgage, where a national tax or a surcharge is collected from the proceeds of sale of the property for which the fact that the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, a pledge, or

B) In the instant case, as acknowledged in the aforementioned facts, the statutory date among the claims for delivery in the auction procedure of this case filed by the Defendant Republic of Korea is 8,543,090 won, the amount of Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim for delivery, and the remaining taxes are after the statutory date was registered as the registration date of the establishment of the ownership of the root of this case.

C) Therefore, among the instant distribution schedule, the portion of allocating KRW 28,543,090 to the Defendant Republic of Korea (west 00), is justifiable, but the portion of allocating KRW 3,761,650 to the Defendant Republic of Korea (west 00) is unlawful.

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant 000 Insurance Corporation

1) The date of registering the establishment of the Plaintiff’s creation of the instant neighboring mortgage by the Plaintiff is February 23, 2016, and the date of the registration of seizure by the Defendant 000 Insurance Corporation is delayed on February 21, 2017, and it is unlawful to distribute it to the Plaintiff in the same order with regard to the insurance premium claims of the Defendant 000 Insurance Corporation.

2) Determination

A) According to the provisions of Article 85 of the 000 Insurance Act, Article 98 of the National Pension Act, and Article 30 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, etc., 000 insurance premiums, national pension premiums, employment insurance premiums, industrial accident compensation insurance premiums, etc. shall be collected in preference to other claims except national and local taxes. However, in the sale of an asset for which it is proved that the establishment of a right of lease on a deposit basis or a mortgage has been registered prior to the due date for payment of insurance premiums, etc., the same shall not apply

B) As acknowledged in the foregoing facts in the instant case, the portion of the insurance premium claims claimed by Defendant 000 Insurance Corporation prior to the date on which the establishment registration of the instant root was completed, which was the aggregate of KRW 3,661,150, out of the insurance premium claims claimed by Defendant 00 Insurance Corporation, was the month of January 2016.

C) Therefore, the portion of distribution of KRW 1,775,122 to Defendant 00 Insurance Corporation was set in the instant distribution schedule within the scope of the amount to be duly distributed.

3. Conclusion

A. Therefore, among the instant distribution schedule, the part regarding the dividend amount of the Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Republic of Korea”) KRW 3,761,650, the dividend amount of KRW 315,623 to Defendant 0, and KRW 1,308,955 to Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant 00”) is unlawful, and thus, is deleted, and the dividend amount of KRW 22,392,591 to the Plaintiff is corrected from KRW 27,778,81 to KRW 27,819.

B. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is accepted, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.