2007 Ghana 9138 Demurrer, etc.

Agricultural Cooperative Federation Specialized in the Green Cross Asset-backed Securitization

Jung-gu Seoul Central District 1 Ghana 75

Senior Director of the Representative;

Attorney Dok-do et al.

1. ○○;

2. Do○○;

3. High ○○;

Note -

5. Kim○-○

6. ○○.

7. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

Representative of the Do Governor Kim Tae-hwan

Law Firm Haok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Go Sung-sung et al.

December 18, 2007

January 15, 2008

1. A. A. The lease agreement between the non-party 1, 25, 200 on January 25, 2005 between the non-party 1, 200 and the defendant 1, 200 won is within the limit of 12,00,000 won. B. The lease agreement between the non-party 2, 204 and the defendant 12,000,000 won on December 20, 2004 between the non-party 3, as stated in the attached list, is revoked within the limit of 12,00,000 won between the non-party 1, 3, and the non-party 2,00,000 won on December 30, 204 between the non-party 1, 200, 4,000 won on the real estate and the non-party 1, 205, 10,000 won on the real estate between the non-party 2, 2005,005.

2. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on May 4, 2007, the dividend amount of KRW 12,00,000 for each of the dividend amount to Defendant Lee ○○, door-○, high ○, door-○, door-○, Kim○, Kim○, and Lee ○○, and KRW 22,44,149 for each of the dividends amounting to KRW 22,44,149 for Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province 1, and KRW 617,460,181 for the total dividend amount to the Plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 711,904,30 for each of the 22,444,149 for each of the dividends amounting to KRW 71,30.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim on Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On May 30, 2005, Jeju District Court rendered a decision to commence auction on May 30, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the auction procedure of this case") with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Jinho Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Jinho Housing"), and accordingly on June 1, 2005, the decision to commence auction was registered.

(2) On the other hand, Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) issued a registration of seizure (the title holder is Jeju Tax Office) on July 15, 2005, based on the attached list Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 real estate after the registration of the decision to commence auction.

(3) In the instant auction procedure, the completion period for demand for distribution was set on September 15, 2005, and the Defendant filed a claim for delivery against the acquisition tax delinquent amounting to 56,148,270 won on September 6, 2005, which was earlier (hereinafter “instant 1 acquisition tax”).

(4) On the other hand, the defendant had the authority to issue acquisition tax of this case as to the auction procedure for other real estate owned by Jinho Housing, Jeju District Court 2005 Mata 9090, which is the auction procedure for other real estate owned by Jinho Housing. On February 23, 2007, the defendant received full dividends of 56,148,270 won in arrears of acquisition tax of this case around February 23, 2007.

(5) However, at the instant auction procedure on April 16, 2007, the Defendant filed a request for delivery of KRW 22,444,150 (hereinafter “instant 2 acquisition tax”) with respect to the amount in arrears of the local tax of Jinho Housing. In the instant auction procedure, on May 4, 2007, the distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) was prepared to distribute the amount in KRW 22,44,149 to the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4, 5, Gap 7, 10, Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Party’s assertion

The plaintiff asserted that since the defendant's claim for distribution has no effect as a demand for distribution, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised.

On September 6, 2005, the Defendant filed a claim for delivery of acquisition tax of this case on September 6, 2005, which is the transfer of firearms to demand distribution, and the Defendant received the entire amount of acquisition tax of this case at the auction procedure of 2005, 9090, which is another auction procedure, but in the process of using the acquisition tax of this case in accordance with the relevant provisions, the Defendant filed a claim for issuance of acquisition tax of this case 2, since there was a shortage of acquisition tax of this case as to the acquisition tax of this case, and thus,

(c) judgment;

(1) General theory

A claim for delivery of local taxes, etc. is a claim for distribution of delinquent taxes by joining a compulsory refund procedure, which is in progress by the tax authority, and is in the same nature as a demand for distribution in compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da22311, Nov. 27, 2001). Unlike cases where a registration of seizure by a disposition on default has been completed prior to the registration of the decision on commencement of auction, where the registration of seizure by a disposition on default has been completed after the registration of the decision on commencement of auction was entered, the request for delivery of a tax claim shall be made by the deadline for the completion of the request for distribution, and where it has been neglected, it shall be excluded from the distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da21154, May 8, 2001). It shall not be extended to the portion of the claim that has not been made after the completion of the request for distribution where only a part of the tax claim was requested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da14595).

(2) Determination on the instant case

① According to the above facts, evidence Nos. 7 and 2-3 of evidence No. 1, the statutory date of acquisition tax of this case was March 29, 2004. The statutory date of acquisition tax of this case No. 2 cannot be deemed as the same acquisition tax of this case as March 2, 2004. Thus, even if a party claim against acquisition tax of this case 2 was made after the completion date of demand for distribution, it is not effective since it was made after the lapse date of demand for distribution. ② Even if the party claim against acquisition tax of this case is assumed as the same acquisition tax as the party's intentional assertion, the defendant's claim against Jinho Housing of this case of this case of this case of this case of 56,148,270 won was already extinguished, and the defendant's claim against Jinho Housing of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of 1, 2005.

Therefore, in the auction procedure of this case, 22,44,149 won should be corrected to 00 won.

(d) Sub-committee;

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is justified.

(a) Description of the claim;

The attached Form shall be as specified in the cause of the claim (attached Form shall be omitted because the dispute is not related to the dispute).

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

- The Account-

1) Under the distribution schedule, it is written as the “ Jeju Market”.

2) Although the Defendant received a dividend of the acquisition tax of this case, due to the occurrence of shortage in the process of being appropriated for other claims on his own, the Defendant 2 acquisition of this case

The plaintiff asserted that the request for delivery was made on the premise of the claim, and the plaintiff was distributed to the defendant in another auction procedure.

Even if it is possible to assert it as a ground of demurrer against distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27427, Aug. 23, 2007).