If part of the claim is subrogated and the additional registration of partial transfer of right to collateral security has been made, it shall be deemed that the right to collateral security is completed in proportion to the amount of

Where several persons make a payment by subrogation for a part of the claim at different time and make an additional registration of partial transfer of the right to collateral security, they shall be deemed to have completed the right to collateral security in proportion to the value of the payment by some subrogation.

Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Single 6839 Demurrer against a distribution

LAA et al.

BB 2 other than

December 23, 2011

February 3, 2012

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by this Court on July 6, 2011, with respect to the auction of real estate auction case at this Court 201, 201, 122,739,735 won of the PlaintiffCC, 151,941,941,735 won, and 122,739,735 won of the amount of dividends of Plaintiff LCC, 151,941,133 won, 34,129,764 won of the amount of dividends to Defendant EE, 3,402,394 won, and the amount of dividends to Defendant E, 1,590,320 won, and 26,085,105 won against Defendant B (person entitled to provisional seizure) shall be corrected, respectively.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against Defendant BB are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit:

A. 80% of the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant BB is 80%, and the remainder is the plaintiff

'A'

B. The part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant EE, and Korea shall be borne by the defendant E and Korea respectively.

Of the dividend table stated in the order (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution table of this case"), 122,739,735 won each of the dividend amounts against the plaintiffs shall be 154,093,852 won each, and 15,641,124 won each of the dividend amounts against the defendant B (right mortgagee) shall be 11,35,685 won each, except for the correction of 11,335,685 won each.

1. Basic facts

A. The RedF shall complete the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (1) through (4) on June 18, 2004 and on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (5) and (6) 7319.5 shares of 8211 among those listed in the separate sheet (1) through (4).

B. On June 18, 2004, the Scam Livestock Industry Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "Scam Livestock Industry Cooperatives") had registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 350 million with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") from the RedF, etc. on June 18, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as "the creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case") and made a loan of KRW 250 million with the RedF (hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case"). The defendant BB completed the registration of the transfer of ownership as to the shares of KRW 891.5% of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the defendant Ecam completed the registration of the transfer of ownership as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet on August 12, 2004.

D. With respect to the shares of 26-6 percent of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3) of September 28, 2006 and the shares of 240 percent of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (5) of 26-6-6 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3), and the shares of 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1), (2), and (4) of October 24, 2006, these shares are completed.

E. On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff LA paid 122,739,736 won out of the principal and interest of the instant loan, which was in arrears to the macroducul on February 4, 2010 (= principal of KRW 105,761,250 + interest of KRW 15,654,783 + interest of KRW 15,654,783 + interest of KRW 1,323,703). At the time of the foregoing loan, the overdue interest rate for macroducul, which was applied to the above loan, was 17.6% per annum, and Plaintiff LA partially completed the registration of transfer of 122,739,736 won out of each of the instant real estate on the 11st of the same month.

F. On February 4, 2010, thisG paid the principal for KRW 122,739,735 out of the principal and interest of the instant loan, which was in arrears to the macrodua Cooperatives (= principal of KRW 105,761,250 + interest of KRW 15,654,782 + interest of KRW 15,654,782 + KRW 1,323,703). On February 11, 201, the GG completed the registration of partial collateral security transfer of KRW 122,739,735 of the amount repaid for each of the instant real property.

G. On February 10, 2010, Defendant B paid 15,641,124 won out of the principal and interest of the instant loan, which was in arrears, to the macroducul on which the principal and interest of the instant loan was paid by subrogation. Accordingly, Defendant B paid 15,641,124 won out of the principal and interest of the Hong FF’s loan. Defendant B completed the registration of partial collateral security transfer of KRW 15,641,124 out of the total amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (i) through (v) of the 11th of the same month.

H. This GG filed an application for voluntary auction with respect to each of the instant real estates [Provided, That each of the real estates listed in [Attachment 1-4] through (4) is limited to one third share of RedF, and one third share of RedF in the real estate listed in the annexed Schedule (5) shall be limited to 2439.5 percent of RedF)], and this Court rendered a decision to voluntarily commence auction as of June 30, 2010 and completed the registration of the company on July 1, 2010.

I. On March 15, 2010, PlaintiffCC acquired the claim for reimbursement due to the said subrogation against RedF, which thisG had against, and on February 8, 2011, completed the registration of transfer regarding the right to collateral security in the name of thisG.

(j) In the case of the auction of real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction case”), the Korean Supreme Court: (a) prepared the instant distribution schedule with the content that: (b) KRW 15,641,124,124, each of the collective security holders, paid to Defendant B, the owner of the real estate listed in the Attachment List No. 2; (c) KRW 34,129,764, as the surplus to Defendant E, the owner of the real estate listed in the Attachment List No. 2; (d) KRW 1,590,320, and KRW 265,105,05,000, each of the instant dividends to Defendant B, the holder of the right to issue taxes, after June 1, 2009; and (e) KRW 1,590,320,320, and Defendant B, the provisional attachment authority, who is the owner of the real estate listed in the Attachment List No. 2.

(k) On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiffs stated their respective objections as to the full amount of dividends to the Defendant Republic of Korea on the instant distribution schedule, the full amount of dividends received by Defendant BB as a person holding a provisional seizure and the amount of dividends received by Defendant BB as a person holding a right to a provisional seizure, and KRW 30,727,370 out of the amount of dividends to EE, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 12, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence l or 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim, by asserting as follows.

(1) The RedF agreed to pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of the subrogated payment in addition to delay damages at the rate of 18% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate for deferred consultation on the amount of the subrogated payment. Thus, the amount of dividends to the Plaintiffs shall be calculated on the basis of the amount calculated by adding the principal of the subrogated payment and the delay damages.

(2) Defendant B did not complete the registration of collateral security transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (6). As such, Defendant B should pay KRW 4,305,439, out of KRW 15,641,124, which was paid by Defendant B as a collateral security, to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted to the purport that the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the damages for delay is unjust, since the Defendants can acquire and exercise their rights to the collateral held by a ducul within the scope of the principal amount by subrogation.

B. Legal principles concerning subrogation by the person performing the obligation

In a case where a person who has a legitimate interest in repayment on behalf of the debtor makes a partial payment of the secured obligation on behalf of the debtor, the person who makes the subrogation shall be deemed to have legally acquired the right to light security of the claim held by the previous creditor within the extent of the value of performance, regardless of whether or not a supplementary registration of partial transfer of the secured obligation, which was based on a partial subrogation of the secured obligation, has been made (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2426 Decided June 25, 2004). In a case where several persons make another payment on behalf of a part of the claim and make an additional registration of partial transfer of the secured obligation on behalf of the debtor, they shall be deemed to have completed the right to collateral security in proportion to the value of payment on behalf of some subrogation (Supreme Court Decision 200Da37319 Decided January 19

C. The scope of the right to collateral security in subrogation of the plaintiffs

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs and B. 1. According to the statement 5 and 14 of Gap 2-2, Hong F. 3, 2010, the amount of the loan of this case was agreed to be paid by adding 18% interest on the principal of the payment by the plaintiffs on February 3, 2010 to 10.5% interest rate of 6% on the above 1.5% interest rate of 6% on the payment of damages by subrogation between the plaintiffs and Hong F. 2, this case's main issue is whether the special agreement on the above payment of damages by subrogation was valid and 40% interest rate of 6% on the above 1.5% interest rate of 6% per annum 6% per annum for the above loan of this case, 20% interest rate of 17.6% interest rate of 10% per annum 6% per annum for the above amount of damages by subrogation between the plaintiffs and Hong F. 2, this case's interest rate of 17.6% interest rate per annum for the remaining damages by subrogation.

D. Whether the amount of dividends against the Defendant BB by the mortgagee is unlawful

On the other hand, in light of the above legal principles, even if Defendant B did not complete the supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security with respect to the ancillary properties listed in the attached list (6) of this case, it was possible to exercise the right to collateral security held by the Ducul within the scope of the amount it subrogated. Therefore, the part of the distribution schedule of this case which Defendant BB received as the right to collateral security among the distribution schedule of this case was not erroneous. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’

(e)smallity;

Therefore, out of the distribution schedule of this case, the dividends of KRW 1,590,320 to the Republic of Korea subordinate to the plaintiffs, KRW 26,085,105, and KRW 30,727,370 that the plaintiffs raised an objection to the distribution to the defendant E, among the dividends distributed by the defendant B to the defendant E, KRW 58,40,40,795 should be distributed in proportion to the amount of the claims that the plaintiffs can exercise in subrogation against the plaintiffs. As such, the dividends of KRW 122,739,735, KRW 151,941,132 (=122,739,735, KRW 201,200 + KRW 29,200, KRW 153,656,287, KRW 397, KRW 250, KRW 1539,537, KRW 297, KRW 294, KRW 2391,5319,25375, KRW 29475,2947.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Lee Jae-deok and Korea are justified, and some claims against the defendant Lee B-B are accepted within the above scope of recognition.