If the statutory due date of national tax is earlier than the due date of the lessee, the national tax shall take precedence.

If the statutory due date of the national tax is earlier than the due date of the lessee's claim for return of the lease deposit, the national tax shall take precedence.

Article 35 (Priority of National Tax)

2014Gale861 Demurrer against a distribution

○ ○

Korea

oly 2014 07 04

on 25, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend table prepared by the court on January 8, 2014, ○○ District Court 2012, 2012, 2012, ○○○○○○○○ and 2012, 232,836,292 won, 152,836,292 won, and 80,000 won, the amount of dividend against the Plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 152,836,292, and the amount of dividend against the Plaintiff to KRW 80,00.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) under which the Plaintiff would lease deposit amounting to KRW 80 million, and KRW 206 on February 11, 2008, and KRW 24 months from February 11, 2008 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff made a move-in report on the instant house on February 11, 2008, and received the fixed date on the same day.

C. On December 12, 2012, the instant house commenced the compulsory auction procedure by ○○ District Court 2012 Ma○○○○○○○○○ on December 12, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the decision to commence the compulsory auction procedure in duplicate with ○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on December 14, 2012

D. On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right as a lessee of the instant lease agreement and filed an application for a demand for distribution of KRW 80 million with the court of execution for a compulsory auction procedure in the instant case.

E. On January 8, 2014, the Defendant requested the delivery of value-added tax amounting to KRW 3,592,177,590, which was indicated as the payment deadline on October 25, 2007 and December 31, 2007 to the enforcement court during the compulsory auction procedure of this case.

F. On January 8, 2014, the execution court distributed 232,836,292 won out of the Defendant’s amount of credit of 3,592,177,590 won to the Defendant, who is the holder of the right to deliver on the date of distribution of the compulsory auction procedure of this case, and the Plaintiff prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the “distribution schedule of this case”) that excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

G. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and made an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount of KRW 80 million, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

H. Meanwhile, on August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor purchased the instant house during the compulsory auction procedure of the instant case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Gap's evidence No. 4-1, 2, Gap's evidence No. 6-1 through 3, Eul's statement No. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff was a tenant with the fixed date on February 11, 2008 and was in the status of receiving dividends in preference to the Defendant, it is unlawful and unfair to exclude the Plaintiff from the dividends. As such, the instant dividend table ought to be revised as KRW 232,836,292 as the amount of dividends to the Defendant, KRW 152,836,292, and KRW 80,000 as the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Under the provisions of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes, additional dues or disposition fees for arrears shall be collected in preference to other public imposts and other claims, but the statutory due date of national taxes.

such secured claim is more than national tax if the right of lease on a deposit basis, the pledge, or the mortgage is registered.

The Housing Lease Protection Act can be distributed preferentially, and the same applies to a lessee who has a fixed date under Article 3-2 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, so the order of dividend shall be determined by comparing the statutory due date of national tax and the fixed date for granting a fixed date.

On the other hand, according to Article 21 (2) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an addition to the preliminary return period.

The obligation to pay value-added taxes is established when the preliminary return period expires, and according to the proviso of Article 35(1)3(a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the statutory due date for determining the priority relationship with secured claims, such as mortgage, in the case of national taxes, including the value-added tax to be paid by the preliminary return, shall be deemed the filing date for the reported tax amount, and the statutory due date for determining the priority relationship with secured claims, such as mortgage, shall be deemed the filing date for the reported tax amount, and the additional tax of value-added tax shall be determined by the tax authority. Therefore, the statutory due

2) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 to 5 of this case:

① On October 25, 2007, the date on which the preliminary return period ends, the value-added tax for the second period of 2007.

3,820,843,447 won (from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 207) was scheduled and paid, but the Defendant did not pay it. ② On December 5, 2007, the Defendant determined the non-party company’s value-added tax for the second term of 2007 to KRW 3,867,839,820 including the additional tax for the second term of 46,96,374 won, and sent a notice for payment on December 31, 207; ③ the non-party company paid the value-added tax for the second term of 2007 recovered by the Defendant in the auction procedure, etc.; ③ the fact that the non-party company was either 1,956,103,740 won for the second term of value-added tax for the year 207 to which the Defendant recovered in the auction procedure, or that the Defendant was recognized as having paid the additional tax for the second term of 2007 to KRW 1,19136,37847,785

According to the above facts, the defendant's claim of value-added tax for the second period of 2007 against the non-party company

Of them, with respect to the principal tax of 1,911,736,080 won on October 25, 2007 and December 5, 2007, the statutory due date of which is at least 1,911,736,080 won shall take precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim for return of lease deposit with the fixed date of February 11, 2008, and therefore, the instant distribution schedule distributed to the Defendant prior to the Plaintiff is justifiable. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is

3. Conclusion

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

(c)