[1] Whether only the amount requested for delivery, regardless of the statutory deadline, may be distributed from the proceeds of sale, even if a tax claim regarding the pertinent tax which takes precedence over the right to collateral security regardless of the statutory deadline pursuant to Article 31(1) and (2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (affirmative), and in the case of additional charges and aggravated additional charges on the pertinent tax, if the purport of seeking payment, including the additional charges or increased additional charges, from the date of request for delivery to the date of distribution, has not been clearly disclosed before the end of the period of demand for distribution, whether the amount requested for delivery may be distributed

[2] In a case where a separate request for delivery or a document evidencing the amount of tax is not submitted from the date of seizure following the registration of a disposition of default on national taxes to the date of sale, the measures to be taken by the executing court, and in this case, other tax claims that have the effect of seizure due to a disposition of default on national taxes may be paid in preference to the junior dividend holder, unless a separate request for delivery is made by the end

[1] A creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision on commencing the auction, or a creditor who has the right to preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts, may receive a distribution only once he/she has made a request for a distribution up to the completion period for the demand for distribution. In cases where a lawful demand for distribution has not been made, even a creditor who has the right to preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, may not receive a distribution from the proceeds of sale, and even if he/she has made a demand for a distribution up to the completion period for the demand for distribution, where a part of the claim is not made after the completion period for the demand for distribution, the addition or extension of the claim may not be made after the completion period for the demand for distribution. This is also the same in cases where the purport of seeking a payment, such as interest, etc. up to the date of the demand for distribution, which has not been additionally made before the completion period for the demand for distribution, is included in the object of distribution. This legal doctrine is equally applicable to a request for a request for the delivery of a final distribution.

[2] Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the effect of the seizure of real estate, etc. conducted by the head of a tax office shall also extend to the delinquent amount of the national tax for which statutory due date has arrived under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred. The purport of the above provision is only to the effect of the seizure as a matter of course without a new registration of seizure for the delinquent amount of the same person accrued thereafter, if the seizure is registered once, and it does not recognize a special priority of the national tax claim arising after the seizure, and it does not purport to recognize the validity of the request for the delivery of all delinquent tax amount arising from the seizure after the seizure. Therefore, if a separate request for delivery or evidentiary document is not submitted by the date of sale after the registration of the disposition of delinquent national tax in arrears, the executing court shall distribute the delinquent amount recognized by the registration request on the execution record, but if the dividend amount exceeds the actual delinquent amount at the time of the seizure disposition which caused the seizure disposition, the excess amount shall be the junior dividend holder's objection.

[1] Article 31(1) and Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; see current Article 99(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes) (see current Article 99(2)3 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes) / [2] Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da11526 decided Mar. 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 930) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da65242 decided Dec. 24, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 102) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6115 decided Nov. 12, 2004

(Withdrawal) Industrial Bank of Korea

A limited liability company specialized in eth-backed securitization

Busan District Court Decision 2006Na14877 decided May 1, 200

Busan High Court Decision 2010Na10764 decided May 4, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision on commencing the commencement of a distribution, or a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts, may receive a distribution only once he/she has made a request for a distribution by the completion date of the request for distribution. In cases where a legitimate demand for distribution has not been made, even if he/she is a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, he/she shall not receive a distribution from such proceeds of sale, and even if he/she has a right to demand a distribution by the completion date of the request for distribution, where he/she only requests a part of the claim, he/she shall not add or extend any claim that has not been demand a distribution after the completion date of the request for distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da65242, Dec. 24, 2008). However, if the purport of seeking a payment of interest, etc. from the date of distribution is stated, it shall be included (see Supreme Court Decision 936Da.

This legal doctrine equally applies to a claim for delivery under a tax claim, so even if the relevant tax claim concerns the prior right to collateral security regardless of the statutory deadline pursuant to Article 31(1) and Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010), only the amount claimed by the deadline for claiming a distribution may be distributed by the deadline for claiming a distribution. In addition, even in cases of additional charges and increased additional charges on the relevant tax, if the purport of seeking a payment, including the additional charges or increased additional charges, from the date of requesting a delivery, is not clearly stated before the expiration of the period for claiming a distribution, if the purport of demanding a distribution, including the additional charges or increased additional charges, from the date of requesting a distribution, is not clearly stated, the said

According to the facts established by the lower court and the evidence admitted by the lower court, the Defendant requested the instant auction procedure to provide property tax and its additional charges and increased additional charges on the instant real estate, which occurred not later than August 11, 2009, prior to the completion date for the demand for distribution, but did not reveal the purport of seeking the increased additional charges to be incurred until the date of distribution in the future. However, the Defendant did not reveal the fact that the instant increased additional charges, which occurred thereafter, were included in the increased additional charges when submitting the claim statement again after the date of distribution was notified

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it should be deemed that there was no legitimate demand for distribution by the defendant against the increased additional charges of this case. Thus, the measures taken by an auction court that distributes the amount corresponding thereto to the defendant is unlawful. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error

2. Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the effect of the seizure of real estate, etc. conducted by the head of a tax office shall also extend to the delinquent amount of national taxes for which statutory due date has arrived under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred. The purport of the above provision is to register the seizure once, and if the seizure is completed once, it is merely effective without a new registration of seizure, and it does not recognize a special priority of the national tax claim arising after the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6115, Nov. 12, 2004). The purport of the above provision is not to recognize the validity of the request for the delivery of all delinquent tax amount arising from the date of distribution after the seizure.

Therefore, if a separate request for delivery or a document evidencing the amount of tax is not submitted from the date of sale after the completion of the registration of seizure in accordance with the disposition of national tax in arrears, the execution court shall distribute the amount of tax in arrears recognized by the registration request on the execution record, but if the amount of tax in arrears exceeds the actual amount in arrears at the time of seizure of the tax claim that was the cause of seizure disposition, the amount in excess shall be the object of objection against the junior distribution holder. In such cases, even if other tax claims having the effect of seizure due to the disposition in arrears exist, unless the request for delivery is made separately by the completion date of the request for distribution, the said amount

According to the facts established by the court below and the evidence admitted by the court below, the defendant's completion of each registration of seizure of the real estate of this case according to the disposition on default in order to collect the delinquent tax amount and additional dues amounting to a total of KRW 1,737,364,640 from May 15, 2004 to October 30, 208. However, the increased additional dues of this case do not include taxes to be collected due to the disposition on default at the time of the above registration.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, each of the above seizures shall be effective to the increased additional charges of this case, but since the increased additional charges of this case occurred after the registration of seizure, the defendant cannot distribute the amount equivalent to the increased additional charges of this case to the defendant, unless the defendant requests a separate delivery of the increased additional charges by the deadline for demanding distribution from the auction procedure of this case to the completion of the auction procedure of this case. The judgment of the court below is just, and there

On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11055 Decided January 25, 2002 cited in the ground of appeal, in the case of taxes that were to be collected due to the disposition on default at the time of the registration of seizure, the purport is that the amount exceeding the amount claimed prior to the completion of a demand for distribution may be extended by the documents and evidence, etc. submitted within the scope of claim amount under the registration of the seizure before the commencement of the auction order, and that the amount of delinquent taxes to be distributed may not be extended within the limit of the amount seized even after the completion of the demand for distribution, in the case of all taxes having the effect of the seizure. Accordingly, this is not the taxes that were to be collected due to the disposition on default at the time of the registration of the seizure, but the increased amount generated thereafter

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)