beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 01. 08. 선고 2015나2033791 판결

국세징수법 제41조 제1항에 의하여 체납자를 대위하여 체납자의 채권을 추심하는 경우에는 체납자의 무자력을 요건으로 하지 아니함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Western District Court-2014-Gohap-39602 ( October 11, 2015)

Title

Where collection of claims of a delinquent taxpayer in subrogation of the delinquent taxpayer under Article 41 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act is not required as the requirement for the insolvency of the delinquent taxpayer.

Summary

(1) The seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act (as stated in the judgment of the first instance) prohibits all acts of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc. concerning claims, and makes it possible to collect claims on behalf of the defaulted taxpayer. Thus, the collection of claims of the defaulted taxpayer on behalf of the defaulted taxpayer under Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act does not require the defaulted of

Related statutes

Article 41 (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

Cases

2015Na203791 Collection

Plaintiff, Appellant

Korea

Defendant, appellant and appellant

AA Construction Corporation

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Gahap39602 Decided June 11, 2015

Conclusion of Pleadings

November 18, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

January 8, 2016

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 103,763,490 won with 20% interest per annum from November 29, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, since it added "No. 7 with attached evidence" to No. 6, No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.