The statutory due date of additional taxes and additional dues

As a result, the statutory due date of the penalty tax is determined on the basis of the statutory due date of the claim secured by the additional tax claim, mortgage, etc., and it is reasonable to view that the statutory due date of the additional tax is the date of delivery, while the statutory due date of the additional tax is the time when the notified due date of payment

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 34,755,889 won with 5% interest per annum from December 2, 2008 to June 10, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 113,64,460 and KRW 106,956,230 from September 8, 2005 to KRW 3,601,210 from July 14, 2006 to KRW 2,714,520 from September 25, 2006; KRW 5% from September 25, 2006 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim; and KRW 20% from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2004, in order to secure loan claims against the non-party ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party ○○○○○○○-dong 524, 101 (hereinafter referred to as "101") and 103 (hereinafter referred to as "103") on the non-party 1’s first floor, Ansan-si ○○○○-dong 524, 101, and 103 (hereinafter referred to as “non-party 103’s building”), the Plaintiff was established by the non-party 1 as a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”).

B. Meanwhile, on March 31, 2004, the statutory due date of return of corporate tax of 2003, the non-party company withheld 80,447,943 won as corporate tax on March 31, 2004, and 5,580,950 won as earned income tax on April 10, 2004, which is the statutory due date of return of corporate tax of 2004, and 424,617,477 won as value-added tax on April 25, 2004, which is the statutory due date of return of value-added tax of 104, but failed to pay it by the due date of payment. Accordingly, the defendant sent a notice of tax payment in addition to the additional tax, and the specific details thereof were as follows.

C. After that, the non-party company failed to pay the corporate tax on March 2003, 204, the earned income tax on March 171, 2004, the value-added tax on 171 minute (hereinafter referred to as "principal tax, additional dues of each of the above items", "each of the principal tax of this case," "additional taxes of this case," "each of the additional dues of this case," and "each of the national taxes of this case" including all of them), and the defendant requested to deliver the total amount of 72,096,610 won including each of the national taxes of this case to the public sale of the building at Ansan-si 103, whose ○○ Office requested the delivery of the total amount of 72,096,610 won including each of the national taxes of this case, and distributed the amount of 271,927,440 won to the public sale of each of the above items. In addition, the defendant requested the public sale of 660,603,603600 won and 140

E. The Plaintiff reported KRW 614,357,684 in the public sale procedure of the building No. 103, and KRW 711,297,252 in the public sale procedure of the building No. 101 as the amount of the claim secured by the instant right to collateral security, but was not fully distributed on the ground that the date of creation of the instant right to collateral security was late than the statutory date of each national tax of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

The plaintiff should determine the priority relationship between the claims for additional dues of national tax and the claims secured by the mortgage after the date of establishment of mortgage. Since the statutory due date of each additional dues of this case expired on April 26, 2004, the date of payment of each of the national tax of this case, which is the date of establishment of mortgage of this case, the registration date of establishment of mortgage of this case, the above amount of KRW 108,720,830 (=16,157,090 + 1,215,410 + 410 + 606,315,730 + 300 won, which is the amount appropriated for each of the additional dues of this case, the above amount of the principal tax of this case, 30,000 won, 40,000 won, 306,315,730 won should be distributed to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the statutory due date of each principal tax of this case is earlier than the date of the registration of creation of mortgage of this case, and that the statutory due date of each principal tax of this case is also the same as the statutory due date of each principal tax of this case. Accordingly, all of the national taxes of this case is more than the secured debt of this case, and that the total amount allocated to the Defendant in each public auction procedure of this case is less than the amount that falls short of each of the principal taxes of this case, and therefore, the Plaintiff’

3. Determination

(a) The highest relationship between the secured debt of the collateral security of the instant case and the additional tax and the additional dues; and

(1) In order to ensure the faithful performance of the obligation provided for in tax-related Acts, additional taxes are collected in addition to the amount of tax calculated under the relevant tax-related Acts. Even if additional taxes are imposed and collected as the principal tax, in essence different in nature from the principal tax, the statutory due date of penalty tax itself should be the standard. Since additional taxes are determined separately from the imposition of principal tax, the statutory due date of penalty taxes shall be deemed the date of sending a notice of tax payment pursuant to Article 35(1)3 (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. (2) If a tax return deadline has been imposed within a tax return deadline, the tax authority’s act for determining liability would be unlikely to intervene, and the taxpayer fails to pay the amount of the principal tax, but the statutory due date of penalty taxes is different in nature from that of the principal tax, and it is determined that additional taxes are more than 200 days after adding the amount of tax notified to the amount of national tax under the National Tax Collection Act when national tax is not paid by the due date, the statutory due date of penalty taxes shall be deemed 1080.

As to this case, the non-party company reported each principal tax of this case on March 31, 2004, April 10, 2004, which is the statutory due date of return of each principal tax of this case, and on April 25, 2004 (value-Added Tax), but did not pay it. The defendant set the due date of payment as of May 15, 2004, the corporate tax (excluding corporate tax payable in installments) including the additional tax of this case set as of May 31, 2004; the due date of payment for corporate tax to be paid in installments was set as of July 31, 2004; the due date of payment for wage and salary income was set as of July 7, 2004; the due date of payment for each of the above additional tax was set as of June 5, 2004; the due date for payment was set as of June 30, 2004; and each of the above additional tax was set as the due date of payment for each of this case.

B. According to Article 21(2)1, Article 22(2)3, and the proviso of Article 35(1)3(c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes in a friendly relationship between the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security and the principal tax of the earned income tax, withholding income tax at source comes at the statutory due date and at the same time when the withholding agent pays the amount of income. In full view of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 7-1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the non-party company reported the performance of withholding tax on the amount of the wages, etc. on March 10, 204. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the legal due date has arrived since the establishment and confirmation of tax liability on the principal tax of the earned income tax of March 10, 204 at least that of the principal tax of the instant right to collateral security at least that of March 204, 204, the statutory due date for establishing the principal tax of this case cannot be seen as having arrived more than that of the instant principal tax.

C. The defendant's unjust enrichment

The Defendant allocated KRW 271,927,440, and KRW 273,474,819 in the public auction procedure of the building 103 and KRW 275,402,259 in the building auction procedure of the building 101. However, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant appropriated the amount allocated as above for KRW 6,557,170 and additional KRW 108,720,830 for each of the additional taxes of this case and KRW 430,124,259 (= KRW 545,402,259-6,57, 170-108,720,830) by appropriating it for each of the principal taxes of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant appropriated the total amount of national taxes of this case as above.

However, according to the friendly relationship between the secured debt of this case and each of the national taxes of this case, the amount allocated to the defendant during each of the public auction procedures of this case should have been allocated in the order of the principal tax of this case, the secured debt of this case, the additional tax of this case, and each of the additional charges of this case. Thus, on September 8, 2005, the amount of KRW 271,927,440 allocated to the defendant on September 8, 2005 in the public auction procedure of the building No. 103, KRW 80,580,950, the principal tax of the earned income tax of this case, KRW 580,950, the principal tax of the earned income tax of this case, KRW 185,898,547, the principal tax of this case should have been allocated in 101, KRW 273,474,7888,4785,7487,9785,797,7487,747

Therefore, the defendant should have distributed the above 34,75,89 won to the plaintiff without any legal ground and appropriated the above 34,75,889 won for each of the above additional dues and damages equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant, as unjust enrichment, 34,75,889 won as well as the record of this case, clearly from December 2, 2008 to June 10, 2009, when the defendant raised an objection to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff, a specialized institution for tax collection, did not have any knowledge about the above distribution in the public sale procedure of this case, and thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as having received damages for delay from the date of the above 20th day of receiving damages from the above 10th day of the public sale procedure of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.