There is effect of a demand for delivery by completing the registration of seizure before the voluntary decision to commence auction.

A tax claimant who has seized prior to the registration of the decision on commencing auction has the validity of a request for delivery by the registration of seizure, and may distribute dividends by investigating the amount in arrears pursuant to a written request for attachment, and otherwise, a tax claimant who has not seized prior to the registration of the decision on commencing auction may receive a dividend only for the taxes requested for delivery by

2017 grouped 13369 Demurrer

AA

Republic of Korea and 1

March 9, 2018

March 30, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared on August 9, 2017, the amount of 168,320 won for Defendant Goyang-si and the amount of 16,610,570 won for Defendant Goyang-si shall be adjusted to KRW 0, and the amount of 16,610,570 for Defendant Goyang-si shall be distributed to the Plaintiff in KRW 16,778,890, among the distribution schedule prepared on August 9, 2017.

1. Fact-finding;

A. On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with the LJY’s share of 1/6 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) out of 54-2 5706 square meters of Doo-Doo-Eup, Doo-si with the maximum debt amount of 70 million won. On November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”). On December 29, 2008, on April 29, 2016, the attachment registration of the instant real estate was completed under the name of Defendant Goyang-si (Osan-gu), and on April 29, 2016, the attachment registration was completed under the name of Defendant Republic of Korea (Oyang-si Office of Disposition), each of which was entered in the attachment registration of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea as the aggregate of KRW 10,10481,2781,28481,2781.

C. In the above voluntary auction procedure, Defendant Goyang-si submitted a written request to the competent administrative court on August 16, 2016, prior to the completion period to demand a distribution (as of September 26, 2016), and filed a claim for the delivery of KRW 168,320 on the grounds that LJY failed to pay the resident tax (transfer income) of March 10, 2003. The head of the competent tax office affiliated with the Republic of Korea submitted a written request for the delivery on July 28, 2017, which was after the completion period to demand a distribution. D. On August 9, 2017, the head of the competent tax office drafted a distribution schedule with the content of KRW 168,320 (distribution ratio), 100), 16, 610, 6107, and 97% of the dividends distribution ratio in the Republic of Korea, each of which is each tax authority.

E. On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution against the Defendants on August 14, 2017.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

When the Plaintiff entered into the instant mortgage contract and lent money to LJY, the Defendants did not exercise their rights, such as seizure (if the Defendants registered seizure, the Plaintiff did not lend money to LJY). Therefore, the instant dividend table that distributes the full amount of the proceeds of sale to the Defendants is unreasonable.

1) Unless it is proved that the establishment of a mortgage has been registered or recorded before the statutory due date for taxation claims (in cases where the Government or a local government makes a determination of a tax base and tax amount, the date a tax notice has been sent) have been first collected on the tax claim (Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 71(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the High Military Court's ruling of February 28, 2003 as to LJY's imposition of KRW 10,451,646 and local income tax of KRW 1,045,164 for the year 202 on February 28, 200, and issued a notice of capital gains tax and local income tax notice to LJY on March 6, 2003. Therefore, according to the above provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the statutory due date of the above capital gains tax and local income tax is determined as March 6, 2003, and it is not valid before the above statutory due date of November 30, 2008, which was completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of mortgage on the real estate of this case, and the right to request the commencement of seizure by 15 days prior to the issuance of dividends by the plaintiff's request for the issuance of dividends (see Supreme Court's decision of 20019 days prior to the above.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.