Jeonju District Court-2015-Ba27837 (No. 21, 2016)

The real right of security shall not be preferentially paid out of the compensation alone with respect to the land to be expropriated.

As long as a mortgagee loses a preferential right to payment because he/she did not exercise a subrogation right, the mortgagee may not claim for the return of unjust enrichment even if other creditors have obtained a benefit from the compensation.

Article 342 of the Civil Act by subrogation, the exercise of a claim under Article 273 of the Civil Execution Act and other property rights

Jeonju District Court-2016-B-9035 (Law No. 28, 2017)

00 City/Do

Korea

Jeonju District Court-2015-Ban-27837 (20, 2016.09)

2017.05.24

2017.06.28

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 170,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the day when the copy of the application for modification of the lawsuit in this case is served to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 170,000,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the application for modification of the lawsuit in this case is served to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The part to be dried

○ The second 9th Doz. “12. Gaz.” and the fourth 16th Doz. “Plaintiff”, respectively.

"김▣▣"로 각 고쳐 쓴다.

B. Additional determination

1) The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff stated the petition of appeal as of October 4, 2016 at the date of the first instance trial. However, considering that “from August 4, 2015 to September 7, 2015” in paragraph (2) of the purport of appeal as “from August 7, 2015 to E, the date following the delivery date of the duplicate of the application for modification of the instant lawsuit against E,” the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from the next day after the delivery date of the duplicate of the application for modification of the instant lawsuit at the first instance trial, and “the delivery date of the duplicate of the application for modification” was obvious on September 7, 2015, and there is no extension of the purport of appeal at the trial, it appears to be “from August 4, 2015 to September 7, 2015,” which appears to be “from the following day to September 5, 2015 to this point as the delivery date of the duplicate of the application for modification of the instant lawsuit.”

The chief of a tax office under the National Tax Collection Act shall have jurisdiction over the payment of compensation in this case.

되는 체납처분절차는 아니지만, 국세에 우선하는 채권자를 보호하기 위한 법 취지에 비추어, 국세에 우선하는 채권자가 있음에도 불구하고 배분순위의 착오로 인하여 체납액에 먼저 배분하거나 충당한 경우 그 배분하거나 충당한 금액을 국세에 우선하는 채권자에게 국세환급금 환급의 예에 따라 지급하도록 하는 국세징수법 제81조 제5항이유추적용되야 한다. 이 사건의 경우 국세에 우선하는 채권자인 김▣▣가 있음에도 착오로 피고(□□세무서)에 먼저 이 사건 보상금을 지급한 것이므로 피고는 이를 환급하여야 한다.

2) Determination

In relation to the distribution of money under Article 81(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act, relationship with attached property

되는 전세권・질권 또는 저당권에 의하여 담보된 채권'을 배분채권으로 규정하고 있고(원고는 국세징수법 제81조 제5항에 따른 환급을 주장하면서도 김▣▣의 채권이 배분채권에 해당하는지에 관하여는 명시적으로 주장을 하고 있지 않으나, 김▣▣가 이 사건 토지에 관한 근저당권자인 점을 고려하면 국세징수법 제81조 제1항 제3호의 배분채권이라고 주장하는 것으로 보인다), 같은 조 제5항에서는 '세무서장은 제1항의 규정에 의한 배분이나 제2항의 규정에 의한 충당에 있어서 국세에 우선하는 채권이 있음에도 불구하고 배분순위의 착오나 교부청구의 부당 기타 이에 준하는 사유로 인하여 체납액에 먼저 배분하거나 충당한 경우에는 그 배분하거나 충당한 금액을 국세에 우선하는 채권자에게 국세환급금의 환급의 례에 의하여 지급한다'고 규정되어 있으나, 위 제81조 제1항 제3호에서 말하는 '저당권에 의하여 담보된 채권'은 압류재산에 관계되는 것을 의미하는데, 이 사건에서 피고가 압류한 것은 진00의 이 사건 보상금 채권이고,

이 사건 토지가 아니므로, 김▣▣의 채권을 위 조항에서 말하는 저당권에 의하여 담보된 채권이라고 볼 수는 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed.

The judgment of the first instance court is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.