A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

A person standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to a creditor or debtor who has appeared on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and has raised an objection under a substantive nature on the distribution schedule, and even in cases where the goods owned by a third party are mistaken as owned by the debtor and has been adjudicated as the objects of compulsory execution, such third party is not an interested party in the auction procedure, and therefore there is no authority

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court 2014dan537140 (O1, 2015)

○○○ Capitals

Korea

May 21, 2015

June 11, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on November 27, 2014 with respect to the motor vehicle auction case of Suwon District Court 2014, 2014, KRW 3,529,410, and KRW 98,132 to the Republic of Korea, and KRW 330,333 to the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation, respectively, and KRW 8,69,255 to the plaintiff, KRW 12,657,130 to be corrected, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a motor vehicle lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the vehicle (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) with the △△ Corporation (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”).

B. On August 3, 2012, the Plaintiff completed new registration with respect to the instant automobile under the name of the Non-Party 1 in subrogation of the Non-Party 1, 2012, and completed the establishment of mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff, setting the maximum debt amount of KRW 22,980,000 on the same

C. After that, the non-party 1 was in arrears with the payment of the lease fees under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant motor vehicle and rendered a decision to commence the auction on April 17, 2014 by Suwon District Court Decision 2014Mo18567.

D. On November 27, 2014, the auction court distributed KRW 3,529,410 to the Defendant Republic of Korea, the holder of the right to deliver, among KRW 13,649,445, the amount to be actually distributed to the Defendant, who is the holder of the right to deliver, and, in the second order, set up a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 330,333,9,000 to the Defendant Corporation, KRW 98,132 (competent tax affairs), and KRW 115,00 to the Defendant Republic of Korea, and KRW 8,69,255 to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee and the applicant creditor, respectively.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the total amount of the dividend to the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 3, 2014, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant automobile is owned by the Plaintiff, despite its ownership title, and the Defendants’ claim for seizure and delivery of the instant automobile premised on the premise that it is owned by Nonparty 1’s incorporated association is null and void. Thus, the instant dividend table should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to a creditor or debtor who has appeared on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and has raised an objection under the substantive law as to the distribution schedule, and even in cases where the goods owned by a third party are mistaken as owned by the debtor as the objects of compulsory execution, the third party does not have the right to attend the date of distribution and raise an objection under the substantive law as to the distribution schedule. Therefore, even if the third party appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule, such objection is unreasonable, and there is no standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the third party (Supreme Court Decision 201Da63155 Decided September 4, 2002).

However, the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee and creditor of the instant automobile, was present on the date of distribution as well as on the date of distribution, and the instant automobile is owned by the Plaintiff, not by the debtor, and thus, filed an objection against the distribution schedule on the substantive grounds that the Plaintiff has to receive dividends prior to the Defendants, a person having the right to seize and deliver the proceeds of sale of the instant automobile, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of the instant automobile (the Plaintiff clearly stated that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of the instant automobile as the owner of the instant automobile at the date

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.