Whether the "relevant tax" provided for in the trust contract clause includes any such tax imposed on the truster as the taxpayer for such tax.

The "relevant tax" stipulated in the provisions of the trust contract of this case is deemed to be limited to the corresponding tax imposed on the trustee who can be exercised by the State or a local government against the original trustee.

Article 22 of the Trust Act, Article 107 of the former Local Tax Act

Seoul Central District Court 2018 Gaz. 50206 Gaz.

section 22(1)(2) includes the pertinent tax imposed by BB Construction, the truster, on the "relevant tax."

The common assertion of the defendants, which is premised on the fact that they are the defendants, is without merit.

1) Under the instant trust contract, the trustee is obligated to pay the truster’s relevant taxes from the trust property.

There is no clear provision that the trust contract of this case bears the burden. Rather, Article 15(1) of the trust contract of this case is new.

Taxes and public charges on consigned real estate shall be borne by the truster, and the special agreement shall be concluded in Article 6.

Tax and accounting matters related to the trust property of the Do shall be reported and paid by the truster at the expense of the truster.

(2) The Act provides that any person shall be subject to the

2) Article 22(1) of the instant trust contract is a creditor against the trustee or pursuant to the law, etc.

It is merely a determination of the order of priority among creditors who have ever been engaged in trust property; and

of the claims provided that such claims shall be settled in preference to the claims of the first beneficiary.

except the above tax, the remainder of the claims (other than the trustee's remuneration and the claims of the mortgagee prior to the establishment of the trust);

The lease deposit, etc. of a lessee with the power to resist shall be determined by the order of appropriation at the time of settlement of the disposal price.

not acquiring the obligees' rights under section 22(1) but acquiring the obligees' rights

Any contract between the beneficiary and any other legal basis that takes precedence over the right of the original beneficiary.

It seems that there is a right to do so. If so, Article 22 (1) 2 of the above Act is stipulated.

‘The tax' also means the original trustee by the State or a local government, regardless of the existence or absence of paragraph 1 of Article 22 above.

the trustee entitled to exercise the claim against such trustee shall be deemed to be limited to the applicable

It is reasonable.

3) Taxation imposed by the trustee on the truster pursuant to Article 15(4) of the instant trust contract

(1) If payment has been made instead of the money, the expenses shall be calculated with priority over the money to be paid to the priority beneficiary.

tax claims of the State or a local government in substance in such a case.

result of obtaining satisfaction in preference to the rights of the vessel beneficiary, however, that the foregoing provision shall not apply;

the trustee pays on behalf of the truster any taxes and public charges to be borne by the truster, and the truster pays them on behalf of the truster.

(2) If any of the events is not redeemed, it shall not be applicable to the

Any tax imposed on the truster under Article 22 (1) 2 of the Trust Contract shall be included naturally in the trust contract.

shall not be construed.

4) The former Local Tax Act (Law No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010), which was enforced at the time of entering into the instant trust contract.

In accordance with Article 183(1) and (2) of the Trust Act, a trustee under the Trust Act;

In cases of trust property registered in the name of the trust property, the truster shall be liable to pay the property tax or the trust property.

in the case of a trust property not registered under the name of the trustee, the liability to pay taxes in principle

A person who actually owns the property of a person and becomes a trustee (Supreme Court)

Taking into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du26852, Nov. 27, 2014) the truster is imposed on the truster.

Even if the pertinent tax is not included in Article 22(1)2 of the Trust Contract of this case

It cannot be said that there is no meaning of regulations.

5) Supreme Court Decision 2016Da269506 Decided September 12, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2014 Decided November 9, 2017

C. 202806 Judgment, etc. is similar to Article 22(1) of the Trust Contract of this case

property tax imposed on the trustee in relation to the trust property in relation to the "public charges and charges" set forth therein.

It seems that only the tax imposed on the truster does not include the tax imposed on the truster.

B. For the same reason, a claim for monetary payment against a trustee subrogated to the truster of a local government

We affirm the decision of the court below that rejected.

C. Determination on the conjunctive argument of Defendant * Seoul Special Metropolitan City*

The pertinent tax imposed by BB Construction to the "relevant tax" under Paragraph 1(2) of Article 22 of the instant case shall be included;

as mentioned above. In addition, defendant ** the Gu's demand for AA Trust

Claim is a taxation claim of property tax, etc. imposed on BB Construction, the truster of the instant trusted real estate.

Under the principle of no taxation without law, AA Trust, which is not the original taxpayer, is merely a private contract.

The defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be deemed to bear tax liability under the trust agreement of this case.

**The preliminary argument in the Section has no reason to see either mother or mother.

D. Sub-committee

Of the instant deposit, the right to claim payment of KRW ***,00,000 out of the instant deposit is one order under the instant trust contract.

The above priority beneficiary shall belong to the plaintiff who acquired the above claim from CCC, which is the first beneficiary; and

It is so long as the Defendants asserted that they have the right to claim the payment of deposit money.

The interests of the person are also recognized.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Pwho*****

Korea*** Na1

2018.05.25

13, 2018.13

1. AA Trust Co., Ltd. *.*.* 201*. * the Seoul Central District Court 201* ***** out of *,631,460 won********,00,00,00 won.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of a security trust contract;

1) The BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “BB Construction”) entered into a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trust agreement”) with the first priority beneficiary (the amount of profit limit***,000,000,000,000 won) with respect to the trust property of this case with respect to the BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “AA Trust”) as a joint beneficiary (the trust property of this case”) in order to secure the obligation for loans to the nine financial institutions, other than ○○○ Savings Bank, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “○○ Savings Bank, etc.”). On the same day, AB Construction entered into a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trust agreement”) with respect to the trust property of this case with the first priority beneficiary (the trust property of this case).

2) The CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) to which the first priority interest under the instant trust agreement was transferred from Do○○ Savings Bank, etc. for BB construction and the first priority interest under the instant trust agreement entered into a contract for the change of the real estate security trust agreement with a company, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) by changing the first priority beneficiary under the instant trust agreement to CCC.

3) The part pertaining to the instant trust agreement is as follows.

Article 15 (Bearing of Expenses)

(1) Taxes and public charges on real estate in trust and trust profits, expenses incurred in the performance of trust affairs, such as financial expenses, etc., and losses incurred by any cause not attributable to the trustee in the performance of trust affairs shall be borne by the truster.

(3) Where a truster fails to pay expenses, etc. under paragraph (1) by the due date, a trustee may pay them on behalf of him/her, and in such cases, the truster shall pay damages for delay from the due date to the due date to the due date to the due date of arrears in accordance

(4) A trustee may deduct and collect the substitute payments and delay damages referred to in paragraph (3) from the property before or from the property to be paid to a truster or priority beneficiary in preference. Article 22 (Method of Settlement of Proceeds from Disposal, etc.)

(1) Where a trustee liquidates the trusted real estate and adjusts it, the order of appropriation shall be as follows:

1. Expenses incurred in the procedures for real estate management and public auction, and remuneration to be received by the trustee (trust remuneration and remuneration to be received by the agent);

2. Property tax, etc. notified until the proceeds from the disposal are received.

3. Deposit for lease which takes precedence over the mortgagee's right to collateral security under subparagraph 4.

4. Claims of the mortgagee of the right to collateral security before the creation of trust (within the maximum amount of claims);

5. Lease deposit of the lessee with opposing power in the company.

6. Claims of the first beneficiary; 7. Where any remainder exists after repayment in sequence, the truster shall file a return on the tax and accounting matters related to the trust property under Article 6 (Tax Affairs, Accounting, etc.) of the special agreement for payment with the truster at his/her expense;

B. CCC requested the disposal of the instant trusted real estate in the instant trust as stipulated in the instant trust agreement, and AA Trust has made a request for the disposal of the instant trusted real estate in the instant trust,**. The instant trust real estate in KRW***,00,000 and was paid for the sales of the instant trusted real estate in KRW **,000. The Defendants’ demand for distribution was made.

1) Defendant Republic of Korea claimed that the aggregate of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc. on the instant trusted real estate from 200*,186,670 to 201* the aggregate of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc. on the instant trusted real estate in arrears pursuant to Article 22(1) of the instant trust agreement **,186,670 to 201*, the first beneficiary’s claims should be settled in preference to AAA trust. (2) Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City*** the Gu from 200 to 201* the aggregate of the property holding tax, etc. on the instant trusted real estate from 200*,44,790 to 201* the aggregate of the property holding tax, etc. on the instant trusted real estate in arrears ***,44,790 to 200 to 201, and demanded its distribution in

(d) Deposit of AA Trust and assignment of claim by CCC;

1) AA Trust deposited KRW **,631,460 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”) with the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the cause of deposit as Seoul Central District Court** 201* the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the cause of deposit as Seoul Central District Court* as the obligee’s unrecogncy.

2) CCC transferred ****, 00,00 out of the instant deposit to the Plaintiff *****,00,00,00 of the instant deposit, notified the Republic of Korea thereof on the same day ***, *. The said notification reached Korea *.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including evidence with serial number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that it is not permissible to impose tax liability on a person who is not liable for tax payment under a private law, or to guarantee such liability, the Defendants cannot receive the settlement of the instant tax, which is the person liable for tax payment, prior to the claims of the first beneficiary. Therefore, ***,00,00,00 out of the instant deposit money ******,00,00,000, which is the first beneficiary, is the Plaintiff.

B. Common assertion by the Defendants

Since Article 22 (1) 2 of the Trust Contract of this case includes the pertinent tax imposed by BB Construction as a truster to BB Construction as a taxpayer, the pertinent tax imposed by the Defendants should be settled in preference to the claims of the first beneficiary. Therefore, the BB Construction may claim against AB Trust in preference to the claims of the first beneficiary. Since the Defendants exercise the right to claim against BB Construction in preference to the claims of the first beneficiary, the Defendants exercise the right to claim against BB Construction in preference to the above settlement claim against BB Construction with the claim against BB Construction as a preserved right, the right to claim payment of the deposit of this case is against the Defendants. Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City** because the pertinent tax imposed by BB Construction as a truster is included in the "relevant tax" under Article 22 (1) 2 of the Trust Contract of this case. Thus, Defendant * the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government, a taxation claim of this case, has the judicial right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case in preference to the beneficiary's claims against the first beneficiary.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 107(2)5 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that a truster who is not a trustee shall be liable for property tax for the trust property registered under the name of the trustee pursuant to the Trust Act. Article 22(1) of the Trust Act allows compulsory execution, auction for exercising the security right, preservative measures, or disposition on default of national taxes only when the right arising from the cause prior to the trust or the right arising in the course of performing the trust affairs is established with respect to the trust property. However, where a truster transfers the ownership of real estate to a trustee and a trust relationship is established pursuant to the Trust Act, the trust property cannot be deemed as a truster’s property unless it is wholly transferred to the trustee and externally, and the property tax imposed upon the truster as a taxpayer after the trust constitutes “right arising from the cause prior to the trust” under Article 22(1) of the Trust Act, and thus, cannot be deemed as having been subject to the imposition of taxes imposed on the trust property under the private law. This does not change in terms of taxation rights.

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ common assertion

Considering the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to interpret that the "relevant tax" under Article 22 (1) 2 of the Trust Contract of this case includes only the pertinent tax borne by AA Trust, a trustee, as a taxpayer in connection with the instant trusted property, and that the pertinent tax borne by BB Construction, a truster, as a taxpayer, does not include the pertinent tax imposed by BB Construction. Accordingly,