Where a request for distribution has not been filed by the completion period for the demand for distribution due to a fraudulent act, whether the demand for distribution is valid.

Even if the registration of seizure was revoked due to a fraudulent act and the request for distribution was not made by the deadline for the completion of the request for distribution, if the fraudulent act, which is the reason for cancellation of the registration of seizure, was revoked, and the effect of seizure was restored before the preparation of the distribution schedule,

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

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

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

○○○ District Court 2005ta 9202 regarding a real estate auction case, the dividend amount of KRW 244,98,046 to the plaintiff on June 21, 2006 shall be KRW 435,942,066, the dividend amount of KRW 101,617,340, and the dividend amount of KRW 89,336,680 to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ and KRW 89,36,680, respectively, shall be corrected to KRW 0.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in each of the statements in Gap evidence of 1 through 6, Eul evidence of 1, Eul evidence of 1, Eul evidence of 2 and 3, Eul evidence of 4, 5, Eul evidence of 1, Eul evidence of 1, Eul evidence of 2, Eul evidence of 3 and 4, Eul evidence of 1 and 2:

A. On November 20, 2003, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant real property”). On November 20, 2003, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”).

B. On December 3, 2003, ○○ Development completed a registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership on the ground of the same day’s promise to sell and sell the instant real estate, and thereafter on January 2, 2004, the registration of the seizure of the Defendant ○○○○○○ on June 14, 2004 was completed, respectively.

C. On July 15, 2004, on the basis of the provisional registration of the above right to claim ownership transfer on December 3, 2003, Park○-○ completed the ownership transfer registration on the ground of a sales contract on December 3, 2003. Accordingly, each of the above registrations in the name of the Defendants was revoked ex officio.

D. On November 25, 2004, ○○ District Court 2004Kahap2558 decided on November 25, 2004 that the provisional disposition was prohibited on December 1, 2004 on the ground that the right to preserve was the right to claim the cancellation registration of ownership due to fraudulent act, and the provisional disposition was registered on December 1, 2004.

E. Under such circumstances, on March 4, 2005, upon the application for voluntary auction by ○○ District Court on the instant real estate by ○○○ District Court (2005Mo9202), the decision to commence the auction was made on March 9, 2005, and the entry of the decision to commence the auction was registered on March 9, 2005.

F. On the other hand, on November 15, 2004, ○○ District Court 2004Gahap20398 filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against ○○○○○ on the part of 15, 2004, and the above sales contract between ○○ and ○○ Development on March 24, 2005 constitutes a fraudulent act, and the above sales contract between ○○ and ○○ Development was revoked, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

G. After that, on May 2005, Defendant △△ rendered an application for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○○ on the basis of the above final judgment, but was dismissed on the ground that there was no consent from the mortgagee of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate after the said fraudulent act. Accordingly, on June 20, 2005, ○○ District Court filed a lawsuit against ○○○○○ District Court 2005Kahap12424 against ○○○○ on September 29, 2005 for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true name on the ground that the fraudulent act was revoked, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and on November 11, 2005, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future on the instant real estate.

H. Around March 2005, the auction court announced the owner of the instant real estate to Park○○, and notified the fixed date for the demand for distribution to June 16, 2005, and conducted the auction procedure. On May 2006, the court notified the Defendants of the date of distribution by setting the owner of the said real estate to ○○ Development.

I. In the above auction procedure, on June 7, 2006, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ filed a claim statement of KRW 153,995,040 with respect to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and Defendant △△△ requested the delivery of KRW 859,72,00 for Defendant ○○○○○○ Development on June 14, 2006.

(j) In the above auction procedure on May 22, 2006, the auction court distributed 101,61,336,68,046 won to the defendant ○○○-gu (○○○○○○○○○○○), a person holding the right to deliver the real property in the order of 101,617,340 won, 340 won, and 89,336,680 won to the defendant ○○○○-gu, a person holding the right to deliver the real property, and 24,98,046 won to the plaintiff (the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the bank, the right to collateral security), who is a person holding the right to deliver the real property in the order of 435,942,06, which is the date of distribution (hereinafter the dividend of this case) (the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the bank, the right to collateral security).

(k) On the other hand, in the case of Defendant ○○○○○○-si, the pertinent tax amounting to KRW 1,645,030 (property tax 1,310,830 + KRW 334,200) and acquisition tax amounting to KRW 101,617,340 prior to the above right of collateral security (property tax 1,310,830 + KRW 334,200) and statutory due date have a claim of KRW 9,972,310, etc., and in the case of Defendant ○○○-si, the statutory due date has a claim of KRW 89,36

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, even if each of the above registrations of the Defendants was cancelled ex officio before the commencement of the auction on the instant real estate, it was not possible to receive dividends from the proceeds of the auction because it did not request the delivery of the completion period for the demand for distribution in the auction procedure of the said real estate, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant dividends distributed KRW 101,617,340 to ○○○○○○-si, Defendant ○○○○○, a mortgagee, and KRW 89,336,680, in preference to the Plaintiff, were unlawful, and that the instant dividends distributed KRW 89,36,680 to

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, even if the State, etc. did not make a request for delivery under Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act, if the seizure registration by a disposition on default was made prior to the date of commencement of the auction on real estate, the State, etc. may submit documents, etc. to report the delinquent tax amount or to revise the distribution schedule even after the completion date of the request for distribution, and the court of auction can calculate the delinquent tax amount to be paid by the State, etc. within the scope of the claim amount under the above seizure registration request, or by such documentary evidence, etc., the effect of revocation of fraudulent act by the creditor and other creditors can be seen as the debtor's responsible property in relation to the claim for cancellation of the seizure order and restitution. In other words, even if each of the Defendants's registrations prior to the time of commencement of auction on the real estate in this case had been cancelled, the court of auction ex officio was cancelled due to the acts of cancellation of the request by 00,000 won prior to the expiration date of the auction order, or the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer to the above real estate before the auction order was cancelled.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above assertion from other viewpoint.

3. Conclusion

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