Considering the detailed statement of document production, etc., it is legitimate to distribute it to the tax office as having requested delivery prior to the completion date for demanding a distribution in the auction procedure.

According to the production specifications, civil application and fact-finding, it is reasonable to view that the tax office requested the delivery prior to the completion period for demanding the distribution of the instant light procedure.

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 grouped 12354 Demurrer

Korea

CAAAAA

February 4, 2016

February 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. Purport of claim

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 00, 2015, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 00,000,000,000, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be KRW 00,000,000, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be KRW 00,000,000,000,000, respectively.

1. Basic facts

“A. The instant real estate was sold on October 0, 2015 after a compulsory auction was commenced on October 0, 2014 with regard to the Busan 00-Gu 00-dong 00000 000 000 Do-dong 000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on October 0, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of seizure following the default of value-added tax on October 00, 197, and on October 00, 1997, the Plaintiff demanded a distribution in the instant auction as a creditor of two BB who is the owner of the instant real estate.

C. On the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure opened on October 00, 2015, the Defendant received 00,000,000 won as the secondary seizure authority, and the Plaintiff received a dividend of KRW 00,00,000 as the person having the right to demand a distribution, as the person having the right to demand a distribution of KRW 4.

D. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the Defendant’s dividend amount and filed the instant lawsuit before seven days elapse thereafter.

【Matters without dispute over recognition, entry in the evidence A to 5, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 00, 1997, the Defendant made a registration of seizure on the instant real estate; however, there was no request for delivery or demand for distribution until October 00, 2015, which is the final period for demand for distribution of the instant auction procedure; and on October 00, 2015, the Defendant made a request for delivery. According to the written request for delivery submitted by the Defendant, the amount of delinquent taxes exceeds KRW 0,000,000 and additional dues after October 00, 1997, which the Defendant made a disposition of seizure. However, a tax payer who made a registration of seizure following arrears may receive the delinquent tax amount and additional dues after the date of the seizure disposition, and if not, after the date of the seizure disposition, may not receive the delinquent tax amount and additional dues after the date of the seizure disposition, since the Defendant made a request for the delivery of the final period after the date of the seizure disposition, it is unjust.

3. Determination

As to whether the Defendant made a request for delivery after October 00, 2015, a type of demand for distribution of the auction procedure of this case, the Defendant stated that the Defendant submitted a request for delivery on October 00, 2015. However, the aforementioned evidence and the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 7, 00, 00, and 1 to 00, as a whole, can be considered in light of the overall purport of pleadings. In other words, according to the document production statement kept by the Defendant, the Defendant prepared a request for delivery on the two BB, the owner of the real estate of this case, on October 0, 2014, and the employees of the branch court of the district court of 00,000, issued a request for delivery to the above 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant made a demand for delivery after the end of the demand for distribution is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

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