The submission of a payment plan shall not be an application for the extension of due date or deferment of collection.

The extension of the payment period or the installment payment of the delinquent tax shall not be approved on the ground that there was no reply to the approval of the payment plan.

The postponement of disposition on default under Article 85-2 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 grouped 195 Demurrer

LAA

Republic of Korea and 4

June 2, 2015

July 7, 2015

1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 8, 2015, the amount of 9,087,930 won against the defendant's Republic of Korea and the amount of 00 won for CCC 13,464,764 won shall be corrected to 13,464 won, and the amount of 0 won for CCC 13,464 won shall be corrected to 13,464 won, among the distribution schedule prepared on January 8, 2015, where the same support was provided with respect to the auction of real estate (refusal).

1. Basic facts

A. CCC was the owner of 00:00 00 - 00 - 000 000 - 000 - 000 - (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”).

B. On October 6, 2010, CCC completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the obligor CCC and the maximum debt amount of KRW 23,500,000 on the instant apartment.

C. On April 11, 2013, CCC completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor (appointed party) and the maximum debt amount of KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant EE.

D. Defendant EE filed an application for a voluntary auction with 00 district court 00,000 0,013 200, and Defendant DDR filed an application for a voluntary auction with 2013 Maz.000. The apartment of this case was sold on December 11, 2014.

E. On January 8, 2015, on the date of distribution of the instant case (hereinafter “instant auction case”), KRW 2,808,415 to Defendant DDR, KRW 9,087,930 to Defendant FF Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant FFF Corporation”), KRW 5,47,750 to Defendant GG Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter “Defendant FFF Corporation”), KRW 9,573,992 to Defendant EE, and KRW 8,417,057 to Defendant EE, respectively, on the date of distribution of the instant case (hereinafter “instant auction case”).

F. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the CCC appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant objection on January 14, 2015, within one week from the date each of them stated on the dividend amount of KRW 2,808,415 against Defendant DDR, KRW 4,087,930 among the dividend amount of KRW 9,087,930 against Defendant FF Corporation, KRW 3,793,00 among the dividend amount of KRW 5,447,750 against Defendant FF Corporation, KRW 9,573,92 among the dividend amount of KRW 9,573,97,97, and KRW 6,66,191 among the dividend amount of Defendant EE, KRW 8,417,057, and KRW 8,66,191.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 12, Eul evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the part on the Plaintiff’s claim for dividends against himself

In the case of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the part of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s claim for distribution of dividends to the Defendant is merely a debtor of the right to collateral security of Defendant EE, which was established on the instant apartment, which is the object of sale of the instant auction case, and does not have the right to receive dividends, including ownership, since it is not a claim for distribution of dividends to the Plaintiff, but a claim for distribution of dividends to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is made without any grounds. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution of dividends

3. As to the portion of the claim for distribution against the CCC

B. As to the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

1) Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) asserts that, around December 17, 2014, CCC paid only KRW 5,000,000 out of the tax liability 9,000,000,000 in the auction case of this case based on Article 2-2 (Extension of Due Date and Limit) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes to Defendant Republic of Korea, and submitted a payment plan to pay the remaining taxes later, the amount of dividends to Defendant Republic of Korea should be reduced to KRW 5,00,000, and the remainder should be distributed to CCC.

2) Determination

① As of August 1, 2015, Defendant Korea held CCC a national tax claim amounting to KRW 9,087,930 (i.e., value-added tax and wage income tax on March 31, 2012 + KRW 4,986,310 on March 31, 2012 + KRW 47,880 on wage and salary income tax on March 31, 2012 + KRW 2,412,280 on April 25, 2012 + KRW 1,40,530 on September 30, 2012 + KRW 1,40,530 on March 31, 2013 + KRW 240,930 on the payment deadline of value-added tax on March 31, 2013; and barring any special dispute between the parties, Defendant Korea’s claim for the delivery of the national tax claim in the auction case of this case is justifiable.

According to the evidence evidence No. 3-2, it is acknowledged that CCC submitted a payment plan for arrears, stating the purport that CCC shall pay 5,00,000,000 won, out of the amount in arrears on December 17, 2014, through the distribution of the auction case in the instant case on January 8, 2015, directly on February 20, 2015. However, the payment plan submitted by CCC cannot be deemed as an application for extension of the payment period under the provisions of Article 6 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 2 and 2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and even if CCC had failed to submit the payment plan for arrears for more than one year, it is impossible to apply for extension of the payment period and the disposition for arrears can only be applied for the extension of the payment period and the disposition for arrears, the disposition for arrears shall not be justified on the premise that CCC’s national tax attachment and sale of the property attached to CCC’s property and the above disposition for arrears shall not be justified.

(s) The omission of judgment against the Defendants

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants is dismissed as all of its grounds are without merit.