It is a political party that absorbs the amount to be distributed to the persons holding the provisional seizure due to the priority over the persons holding the provisional seizure.

The plaintiff is subordinate to the provisional seizure right holder who takes precedence over the plaintiff. Since the defendant takes precedence over the provisional seizure right holder as a taxation right holder, the defendant's absorption of the amount to be distributed to the provisional seizure right holder is legitimate.

2011 Single 70141 Demurrer against distribution

IsaA

Korea

April 10, 2012

May 8, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by this court on September 22, 2011 with respect to the compulsory auction case of Suwon District Court No. 201Mo5447, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be corrected to KRW 000,000, and the plaintiff shall be additionally distributed KRW 000,000.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 9:

A. The Plaintiff was involved in the compulsory auction of real estate stated in the claim against the non-party KimF in Suwon-gu OO 000 OOO 000, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, which is owned by KimF, with a claim of KRW 000 against the non-party KimF (the maximum bond amount of KRW 000).

B. The head of the Dongwon Tax Office under the Defendant participated in the above auction case on the taxation claim of KRW 000 against KimF.

C. On September 22, 201, the auction court: (a) distributed KRW 000 to the Defendant (the head of the same district tax office) who is the seizure authority, the date of distribution; and (b) drafted a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 00 to the Plaintiff, the second mortgagee; (c) the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 00 out of the dividends against the Defendant; and (d) filed the instant lawsuit on September 23, 2011.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the establishment date of the plaintiff's right to collateral security has priority over the defendant's legal deadline, but it is unreasonable that the plaintiff did not receive some dividends, so the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Determination

There is no dispute between the parties that the date of establishing the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security takes precedence over the Defendant’s statutory due date for taxation claims. However, according to the evidence above, the Defendant’s statutory due date for taxation claims was not due to the Defendant’s priority over the date of establishing the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security, but for other reasons, the fact that Nonparty Credit Guarantee Fund (the claimed amount), the Industrial Bank of Korea (the claimed amount), and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (the claimed amount KRW 000) have seized the above auction real estate prior to the date of establishing the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security, which can be recognized as being due to the Defendant’s absorbing the amount to be distributed as stated in the attached Form. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s distribution was lower than the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the Industrial Bank of Korea, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (the claimed amount) which are the right to collateral security holders, and the Defendant’s absorption the amount to be distributed to the Defendant as above is justifiable.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.