Seoul Central District Court-2014-Gohap-587717 ( October 16, 2016)

The right to claim the payment of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs recognize the benefit of confirmation, and the right to claim payment of the deposit money of this case is against the plaintiffs.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court 2016Na2049908 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

Liability to pay the proceeds from the settlement of the above taxes, etc. from the disposal price of trust land;

under the principle of no taxation without law, comprehensive real estate which is imposed on the Defendants by Dong Youngdic.

No tax liability with respect to taxes and property taxes shall be deemed to have been directly borne by such tax liability, and such special agreement

Korea Land Trust is promising that the amount equivalent to the tax on the trust property shall be paid directly by the Defendants.

It is also difficult to regard it as a contract for a third party.

(3) Accordingly, pursuant to Article 11(2)1 of the Special Agreement, each of the instant deposits shall be avoided.

The defendants' assertion that it should be attributed to them is without merit.

In addition, Dong Young LAC shall have jurisdiction over the land trust in accordance with the agreement of this case.

to claim the payment of the remaining proceeds of trust after deducting the amount equivalent to the tax liability imposed.

and directly pay an amount equivalent to the tax on the trust property to the land trust.

Since he does not have the right to demand the payment of taxes, he does not have the right to demand the payment of taxes from the United Nations.

There is no reason for the defendant's assertion that the right to claim payment is exercised in subrogation.

The previous provisions shall apply to the case.

- 15 -

3) Defendant Republic of Korea and other arguments

A) The defendant Republic of Korea shall, where the tax officials intend to attach the pledged property, pledge.

A person shall, regardless of the time when the pledge is established pursuant to Article 34 of the National Tax Collection Act, have a tax official create the pledged article.

money received from a third debtor due to the seizure of the claim shall be delivered, and any money received from the third debtor shall be

Since shares should be distributed in accordance with Articles 80 and 81, the collection of the proceeds from the trust of Dong-U.S. due to the disposition on default.

The defendant Republic of Korea asserts that this right shall prevail over the plaintiffs who are pledgees.

B) Pursuant to Article 34 of the National Tax Collection Act, the effect of the seizure of property whose pledge is placed, and in accordance with the same.

shall apply to the seizure of claims not required to be delivered to the pledged property by a provision that provides for the seizure procedure.

In addition, as seen above, the plaintiffs do not have to do so under the trust agreement of this case.

Tax bonds, the statutory due date of which has become due after the date of the above pledge, as a pledgee for the right to benefit of DNA.

The plaintiffs, who are the right holders, shall take precedence over the plaintiffs, and after the conclusion of the trust contract in this case, Dong Young-di, a truster.

Real Estate Tax and property tax imposed on him/her to collect delinquent local real estate tax of this case

No amount equivalent to the relevant tax claim shall be paid directly from the proceeds of sale.

Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea’s above assertion is without merit.

4) Other arguments at Defendant Cheongju-si

A) The statutory due date for the local tax in arrears of Dong Young-si is among the local tax in arrears of Dong Young-si

Since acquisition tax, resident tax and license tax are also included prior to the date of their pledge, Defendant Office

The state claims that the taxation claims take precedence over the plaintiffs' pledge rights.

Tax claims amounting to KRW 66,197,680 for Cheongju-si, Defendant Cheongju-si, the tax claims amounting to KRW 66,197,680.

The claim for the return of ownership of each of the instant real property was seized upon the disposition of payment, and the seizure was subject to the above seizure

Acquisition tax, resident tax and license tax, etc. on January 10, 2008, the statutory due date of which is the date of payment, as well as the amount of delinquent local taxes.

- 16 -

Tax (attached Form 3-2, No. 24 among local tax items, No. 24

The facts which included a period of 34) are as follows. The facts which included the above facts are as follows.

However, the scope of the taxes preserved by the attachment due to the disposition on default is the cause of the attachment.

The tax in arrears is limited to the pertinent tax notified to the debtor as the tax in arrears (Supreme Court Decision 200 June 23, 2000).

98Da34812, see Supreme Court Decision 98Da34812, Cheongju-si, annexed Form 3-2, 3 through 7, 10

The sum of the 422,612,820 won and the 422,612,820 won and the proceeds from the trust of the United Nations.

6,097,680 won including the above acquisition tax, etc. against Dong Young-d Co.

On February 23, 2009, the right to claim the return of ownership on the instant trust land by the disposition of default on the tax credit.

Korea's land trust is the amount equivalent to the amount in arrears of the property tax at the second deposit of this case.

The fact that only KRW 422,612,820 was deposited on the ground that the creditor was not identified, is examined in the above facts.

Therefore, the statutory deadline for the above 66,097,680 Won-si established the plaintiffs' pledge rights.

The preferential repayment of the second deposit in this case may not be asserted on the ground that it takes precedence over the date.

B) Also, Defendant Cheongju argued that the Plaintiffs’ pledge right did not meet the requirements for setting up against the Plaintiff;

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, the plaintiffs are the third debtor in the pledge contract.

Since it is recognized that he obtained the fixed date as of June 27, 2008 with consent and obtained it, the status of Defendant Cheongju-si is above.

The argument is without merit.

4. Judgment on the claims of the succeeding intervenor

A. The successor intervenor, March 24, 2016, from the Plaintiff AA Savings Bank, the Plaintiff Company, on the Dong-young.

The credit and all the security rights related to the credit and the rights incidental thereto have been acquired.

The plaintiff's succession to the above plaintiff and the corresponding amount of the deposit money of this case are divided in proportion to the above plaintiff.

It argues that there are considerable claims for withdrawal against the succeeding intervenor.

- 17 -

B. The Plaintiff Company AA Savings Bank on March 24, 2016 to the succeeding Intervenor on March 24, 2016

Transfer of claims on loans to C, security rights to them, and all other rights incidental thereto.

on June 2, 2016, the notice of the assignment of claims to Dong Young-dicc by content-certified mail is given.

The room is the same as that of the above recognition, and therefore, the successor to the assignment of the above assignment of claims is loaned by the intervenor.

(1) Any deposit made for the repayment of the right to benefit, which was the object of the pledge created to secure the claim;

The claim for withdrawal by the Plaintiff AA Savings Bank as to each of the instant deposits is also transferred.

It is judged that it will be.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff AA Savings Bank that withdraws from this Court among each of the instant deposits

60,393,656 won and 36,155,089 won to be divided to the successor.

Since the successor is transferred to the court, the successor is the party entitled to the above money, and the defendants are the parties entitled to the payment.

There is a benefit of confirmation as long as there is a claim for payment of each deposit.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants should be accepted for all reasons.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and therefore, the plaintiff corporation of the defendants is justified.

The appeal against the plaintiffs other than AA Savings Bank shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff in the first instance judgment shall be dismissed.

The part on AA Savings Bank, a corporation, as above, shall be succeeded to and withdrawn from the trial.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Pyeongtaek Mutual Savings Bank, Inc. and 7

12,051,696 Won, Inc., for

64,275,714 Won 64,275,714

- 5-

The successor intervenor (the successor intervenor succeeded in the trial, and the plaintiff AA Savings Bank, the plaintiff corporation,

The withdrawal from the lawsuit was made in this case).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Republic of Korea and 1

Korea shall be 141,96,910 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax on April 7, 2010 for East Britain on June 2010

4) Article 21(1) of the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 29, 201) provides for the same purpose.

- 12-

Attachment of claims on the proceeds from trust in Dong-young due to the disposition on default of KRW 143,191,560, including the Board

Defendant Cheongju-si, on June 24, 2014, was the disposition on default of 422,612,820 won in total.

D. The claim for the proceeds from DNA Trust is only seized, and the land of this case or the proceeds from the sale thereof are directly related to the land of this case.

No attachment, all of the above comprehensive real estate tax and property tax are subject to the instant trust agreement.

Subsequent tax claims, the truster who is not a land trust for the trustee

Since the above taxation claims are U.S.C., all of the above taxation claims are imposed on the trust land of this case.

The Defendants, even if owned by the trustee, directly from the sale price of the trust land of this case.

An amount equivalent to a taxation claim shall not be paid.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

2) Claim for priority payment under the instant trust contract and special agreement

A) The assertion

The Defendants, under Article 11(2)1 of the instant Special Agreement, have the right to pledge the tax on the trust property.

In order of priority, there is a provision that the trust property shall be paid in preference to the dividend of the pledge or the trust proceeds.

The "tax imposed on United States" is liable to pay the trust property of this case by Dong Youngdi Crata, the truster of this case.

Since the tax imposed by the Defendants is also included in the taxation obligation, the taxation obligation of the Defendants on the EastdiC is subject to the instant special agreement.

Accordingly, each of the instant deposits must be paid in preference to the Plaintiffs’ pledges. As such, each of the instant deposits is against the Defendants.

The author argues that it should be attributed to him.

In addition, the defendant Cheongju-si may, even if the defendant Cheongju-si's land trust

Even if it is impossible to directly claim the payment of the excess property tax, the truster shall be entrusted.

section imposed on the land trust of the person as trust property in accordance with the above special agreement.

as such, a claim may be made for the payment of the tax or the equivalent amount to the tax to the East U.D.;

- 13-

It argues that he/she exercises the above claim as a taxation right holder of Dong Youngdidien.

B) Determination

(1) The truster is in accordance with the "tax on trust property" under Article 11 (2) 1 of the Special Agreement.

In the case of this case, whether the comprehensive real estate tax and property tax imposed on Dong-young is included

Article 19 of the Deposit Contract and Article 12 of the Special Agreement are the truster and beneficiary of the taxes and the public charges for the trusted real estate.

(2) If the trustee does not pay it by the due date, the trustee shall pay it on behalf of the trustee.

(2) In such cases, the truster shall pay damages for delay to the trustee, including damages for delay.

Article 7 of the Special Agreement provides for the report of taxes and public charges arising in connection with the trust business.

and payments are prescribed as the duties of the truster. In full view of these provisions, in principle, it shall not be deemed as the duties of the truster.

The trust contract of this case is entrusted with taxes and public charges imposed on the truster with respect to the trusted real estate.

It is planned that the person will bear the burden of Dong-young.

Moreover, as seen above, trust property under the Trust Act is owned domestically and externally.

The rights of the trustee shall be fully vested in the trustee and in the internal relationship with the truster;

Any compulsory execution, disposition on default, etc. against the trust property, which is not reserved;

rights include only the trustee's account, and include the trustee's account as the debtor.

The former Local Tax Act (Law January 1, 2014), which was applied at the time of entering into the instant trust contract, (No. 1, 2014)

section 107(2)5 of the Trust Act (amended by Act No. 12153), the name of the trustee under the Trust Act

in the case of registered trust property, the truster has been liable for tax payment).

5) Article 7(1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act provides that a person who is liable to pay housing-decentralization tax shall meet certain requirements.

Tax liability is defined as the taxpayer of the tax.

6) Thereafter, the Local Tax Act amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; and

According to Article 17(1) of the Addenda, the case of property tax for which tax liability becomes effective prior to the enforcement of the amendment.

- 14 -

At the time of this case, the "tax on the trust property" under Article 11 (2) 1 of the Special Agreement is the trust property of this case.

the trustee of the trust property, including the trustee of the trust property, shall be liable to pay the

Comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax imposed under the name of the truster shall not be included;

It is reasonable to regard it as reasonable.

(2) Even if the instant special agreement is concluded, entrusting the tax on the trust property under Article 11(2)1 of the instant special agreement.

Terms and conditions of the special agreement, even if the comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax imposed on the person is included;

set forth the order of payment of expenses for the management and enforcement of funds and proceeds from sale.

Considering that the land trust is nothing more than a mere fact, the land trust is subject to the agreement of this case to Dong-young.

on October 10, 2017

on October 14, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs (excluding the withdrawn Plaintiff AA Savings Bank) are dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff AA Savings Bank shall be modified as follows:

A. On June 27, 2014, the Defendant Republic of Korea confirmed that the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd.”)’s KRW 60,393,656, out of KRW 705,934,733, deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 13979, Jun. 27, 2014, Plaintiff A Savings Bank’s succeeding Intervenor claim for payment of deposit money.

B. On June 27, 2014, Defendant Cheongju-si confirmed that the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd.”) had the right to claim payment of deposit money against the Intervenor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff AAA Savings Bank”), among KRW 422,612,820 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 13977, 2014.

3. Appeal costs between the Plaintiffs (excluding the withdrawing Plaintiff AA Savings Bank) and the Defendants, and the lawsuit between the Plaintiff AA Savings Bank’s succeeding intervenors, Inc. and the Defendants

- 4-

The total cost shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. Defendant Korea’s land trust corporation on June 27, 2014, Seoul Central District Court 2014

60,393,656 won, out of 705,934,733 won deposited by gold 13979, AA Savings Bank

16,104,975 Won 16,104,975

JB Mutual Savings Banks, 53,683,250 won, 53,683,250

13,420,812 won, whether or not, the bankrupt, corporation AB, the party taking over the lawsuit of the Korea Exchange Bank

The Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, 85,893,199 won, 85,89

J. 26,841,625 won, 20,131,219 won, 20,219 won, 30,000 shares of the Plaintiff.

company Personnel Savings Bank, 20,131,219 won, 107,366,49 won, 107,366,499 won, to the Incheon Savings Bank, Inc.

The plaintiff corporation confirms that each of the claims for payment of deposit money has been made to the bank of E-S Savings.

B. The Seoul Central District Court in June 27, 2014, 2014, on June 27, 2014

36,155,089 won, out of 422,612,820 won deposited by gold 13977, to the successor, 9,641,357 won, to the successor.

Plaintiff BB Mutual Savings Bank, 32,137,857 won, 32,137,857

8,034,464 Won, a bankrupt corporation, which is a party to the lawsuit of the Korea Exchange Bank

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, 51,420,571 won, 571

16,068,929 won, 12,051,697 won, 12,051,697

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Conclusion of a trust contract for land of sale type and registration of trust;

1) On June 24, 2008, Dong YoungdiC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong YoungdiC") entrusted the land trust with the land trust with the land of the 50-2 large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale 567.5mm2 (hereinafter referred to as the "trust land of this case"), and entered into a sale-type land trust contract (hereinafter referred to as the "trust contract of this case") with the content of selling the above land and apartment, which is a trust property, by constructing four apartment units on the ground.

2) On June 26, 2008, the beneficiary of the instant trust agreement is Dong Youngdidididi, and the main contents of the instant trust agreement and the special agreement entered into in addition thereto (hereinafter referred to as “instant special agreement”) are as shown in attached Table 1. 3) Dong Youngdidididididididididi was completed on June 26, 2008 on the trust land of this case by completing the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant trust agreement against the trustee.

(b) Establishment of a pledge on the right to benefit of Dong YoungdiC;

1) 14 savings banks including the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the savings banks of this case") 1) :

1) The DDA Savings Bank established a pledge and loan to Dong Youngdidididis, and the Plaintiff 4 is the trustee in bankruptcy of the above Savings Bank. On the other hand, the Plaintiff ADA Savings Bank is the Dae Young Mutual Savings Bank, the DDA Savings Bank is a stock company, the DDR Bank is a commercial mutual savings bank, and the Plaintiff AB Savings Bank is one of the stock companies.

- 6- On June 26, 2008, a joint 4th pledge was established for the right to benefit under the instant trust agreement of Dong-dididididididi due to the lending of funds to Dong-didididididididididididi to carry out the above project and its detailed details are as shown in the column of the pledgee and pledge interest.

2) On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff AA Savings Bank transferred to the succeeding intervenor the claims for loans from Dong-young, the security rights thereto, and all other rights incidental thereto, and notified the Dong-young on June 2, 2016 by means of content-certified mail. The attachment, etc. due to the delinquency in payment of national and local taxes of Dong-young.

1) On February 23, 2009, Defendant Cheongju-si seized the right to claim the return of ownership on the instant trust land owned by Dong Young-si’s land trust due to the disposition on default of tax claims equivalent to KRW 66,097,680, including resident tax and acquisition tax on Dong Young-si’s land. In addition, Defendant Cheong-si seized the trust proceeds claim under the instant trust agreement, which was held against Dong Young-si’s land trust on June 24, 2014, equivalent to KRW 422,612,820, total property tax on June 24, 2014 (No. 3 through 7,10 or 23, each year among local tax items of attached Form 3-2).

2) On April 7, 2011, Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Dong Cheongju Tax Office) was No. 804,270 won of value-added tax (attached Form 3-1. National Tax item), value-added tax 390,380 won (attached Form 3-1. National Tax item) on July 2008, and comprehensive real estate holding tax 141,96,910 won (attached Form 3-1. National Tax item) on June 3, 201, the total amount of 143,191,530 won on April 7, 201, and the total amount of 143,191,560 won on April 7, 201 and the total amount of 143,191,530 won on the trust agreement of Dong Do Youngdi C. In case of the trust agreement of this case, the trust savings bank, which is the trust savings bank of Incheon City, was changed from the trust savings bank of Incheon.

- 7- old rights and ② At the expiration or termination of the trust period, the right to claim the transfer of ownership and the right to claim the delivery of trust property were seized.

3) The details of the arrears of the national and local taxes in East Britain are as shown in the attached Form 3 of the Eastern DNA national and local taxes in arrears.

(d)deposits of land trusts;

1) Upon the occurrence of the grounds for disposal of the trust real estate stipulated in the instant trust agreement, the Korea Land Trust attempted to sell and settle the instant trust real estate, and to pay the pertinent amount of the revenue to the Savings Bank, the pledgee of the fourth priority interest. However, as of June 27, 2014, the Defendant Republic of Korea claimed that: (a) the amount of gross real estate holding tax in arrears was 705,934,733 won as of Jun. 27, 2014; (b) the amount of delinquent real estate holding tax in arrears was 422,612,820 won in Dong Young-si, Young-si claimed that the amount of delinquent real estate holding tax in arrears should prevail over the beneficiary or the pledgee at the time of settlement of the disposal price of the instant trust real estate as taxes on the instant trust real estate; and (c) the Defendant Cheong-si claimed that

2) On June 27, 2014, the fact that the land trust constitutes a case where the creditor is unknown without negligence is the deposit source, and ① the savings bank of this case or the defendant Republic of Korea as the deposit holder (hereinafter referred to as the "first trust of this case") on June 27, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court 13979, 705,9333,000,000,0000,0000 won as 1397,000,0000,0000 won as 13977,000,0000 won as 2,000,000 won as the deposit account account (hereinafter referred to as "the second deposit of this case"), and as at the time of deposit of this case 2, the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred the claim to the deposit account holder to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, but thereafter, the above savings bank was transferred from the deposit account holder to the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

3) Attached 3-1. Nos. 3 through 6 annually among national tax items.

- 8- Deposit for repayment in accordance with the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code was made in general term of deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense prior to the merits

A. The assertion

In case where a claim, which is the property of a delinquent taxpayer, is seized due to a disposition on default, the third debtor shall pay the amount of the claim to the execution creditor, and the repayment deposit cannot be made on the grounds of relative creditor's uncertainty, and in light of the fact that the disposition on default and the civil execution cannot be made even if the seizure under both procedures competes with each other on the same claim, the third debtor cannot make the execution deposit. Thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the right to claim the payment on each deposit of this case does not have any benefit of confirmation.

B. Determination

1) When a seizure of a claim based on the disposition on default against a monetary claim becomes effective, the execution creditor may directly collect the seized claim against the garnishee, and the third debtor shall perform the obligation only to the execution creditor who is the collection right holder with respect to the seized claim. Thus, the third debtor shall not make a deposit for repayment with the debtor subject to the seizure solely on the ground that the seizure of the claim based on the disposition on default takes place. Provided, That in cases where the amount of obligation is in dispute with the execution creditor and the creditor is not known due to the refusal to receive it or the concurrence with the assignment of claim, etc., it shall be deemed that the payment deposit may be made on the ground that the creditor

2) In the instant case, the land trust with the third debtor is an execution deposit on the ground of the concurrence of seizure.

- The repayment deposit was made pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act on the ground that the creditor cannot be known, not limited to 9-1, and the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd., in the course of settling accounts of the proceeds of disposal of the trust land and paying profits pursuant to the instant trust agreement, the order of payment of the expenses pursuant to the instant trust agreement between the Defendants who are the tax holders of the same territorial sea and the savings banks of this case, who are the pledgees of the beneficial interest, and the order of payment of the expenses pursuant to the instant trust agreement, the ownership of the proceeds of disposal and the scope of the proceeds of disposal, and thus,

3) Therefore, each of the instant deposits is deemed to meet the requirements for the repayment deposit under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is rejected.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims

1) The Plaintiffs asserted that each of the instant deposits should be paid in proportion to the amount of the pledge right of the Plaintiffs, as a pledgee for the right to benefit of Dong-young under the instant trust agreement, due to the disposition on default of a tax claim that became due after the statutory due date of the pledge, and thus, shall be paid in proportion to the amount of the pledge.

2) According to Article 35(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 31(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010); however, if the savings banks sell the property subject to the right of pledge established prior to the statutory due date, the claims secured by the right of pledge shall take precedence over national taxes or local taxes. The savings banks of this case shall be granted the right of pledge against the right of benefit of Dong-young on June 24, 2008.

- 10 -

In fact, each statutory date of the global income tax for which the Defendant Republic of Korea requires priority payment in the land trust with Korea is or after November 16, 2010, and each statutory date of the property tax for which the Defendant Cheongju’s preferential payment is demanded is the same as that of the above recognition. As such, the pledge right of the savings bank of this case is the same as that of the Defendants, since each statutory date of the property tax for which the Defendant Cheongju’s preferential payment is demanded is the same as that of the above recognition.

4) Therefore, each of the instant savings banks should be paid pro rataly according to the amount of each pledge right, and when calculating this, it is identical to the statement of pro rata distribution of deposits Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2, from among the “the amount of each of the instant savings banks’ pledge right and the details of pro rata distribution of deposits.” As such, the Plaintiffs are the legitimate right holder of each of the instant savings deposits, and as long as the Defendants asserted that there was a claim for pro rata distribution against each of the instant savings banks, the Plaintiffs are the legitimate right holder of each of the instant savings deposits, and there is a benefit

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

1) Claim for priority payment of the tax in question

A) The Defendants asserted that the comprehensive real estate holding tax and the property tax imposed on Dong Youngdic is the pertinent tax imposed on the trust land of this case, which takes precedence over the Plaintiffs’ pledge, regardless of the time of its establishment or legal due date. Therefore, the Korea Land Trust asserts that the Defendants should preferentially pay the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and the property tax from the disposal price

B) A trust under the Trust Act requires a trustee to manage and dispose of his/her property right for the purpose of the trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it. Thus, if the registration of ownership transfer for real estate, which is a trust property, is completed in the future of the trustee, the ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee, and the ownership is not reserved against the truster in the internal relationship with the truster. In addition, Article 22(1)4 of the Trust Act provides that “a trust property

- 11-No disposition on default, such as compulsory execution, an auction to exercise a security right, a preservative measure, or national taxes, shall be issued: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where the right arising before the trust or the right arising from the performance of trust affairs is due to the legislative purpose of ensuring the independence of trust property in order to smoothly achieve the purpose of the trust. In full view of the above provision’s proviso, “the right arising from the performance of compulsory execution, disposition on default, etc. against trust property” includes only the right to the trustee as an obligor, and it does not include the right to the truster as an obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du8734, Apr. 12, 2012; 2010Da67593, Jul. 12, 2012). 205 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if the ownership of a national tax imposed upon the taxpayer’s property was transferred due to compulsory execution, auction, disposition on default, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed as one or more than one of the general trust property.

Judges of the presiding judge shall be appointed from among judges;