Whether the dividend of this case is legitimate

Since the distribution of this case was lawfully made, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

Article 36 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daejeon District Court 2014Gadan27688

Cheong-sung, Inc.

Korea

2014.92

November 18, 2014

Cheong-gu Office

Done on July 2, 2014 by this Court in the Daejeon District Court 2012Thyeong 30038

A dividend amount of KRW 91,269,960 against the defendant among the dividend table distributed to the plaintiff and the amount of dividends against the plaintiff

124,029,734 won 215,299,694

(1) The purport of the claim is to seek the same as the purport of the claim.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff was transferred the right to collateral security set up on June 20, 2008 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) prior to the statutory deadline for the Defendant’s taxation claims, the amount of dividend against the Defendant should be corrected to be distributed to the Plaintiff in the auction procedure for each real estate of this case.

2. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Eul 1 through 3, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage was completed on June 20, 208 to AA 1,260,000 with respect to each of the above real estate on June 20, 208, and the plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage on February 26, 2014 on the ground of the transfer of confirmed claim No. 306, 306, 196, 206, 30.6, 196, 206, 30.6, 196, 206, 30.6, 196, 206, 30.6, 196, 206, 30.6, 196, 206, 30.6, 196, 206, 206, 30.6, 207, 2005, 2015.7, 3.6, 206.7.

Article 36 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 36 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes)

If there is a request for the delivery of other national taxes, additional dues, disposition fees for arrears, or local taxes, the national taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears related to the seizure shall be collected in preference to other national taxes, additional dues, disposition fees for arrears, and local taxes, which have been requested for the delivery, and the so-called attachment priority principle is provided. According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the amount of claims distributed to the defendant is equal to the amount of claims of the defendant among the amounts to be distributed to the Daejeon Metropolitan City with the priority of the plaintiff to the defendant in accordance with the attachment priority principle under Article 36 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, so the above distribution against

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.