약정금 등
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as well as to the period from November 27, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 1 to 3, and Gap evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.
On March 2014, the Plaintiff decided to purchase part of the Defendant’s co-ownership shares from the Defendant’s land in Pyeongtaek-si C in KRW 90,000,000, and paid part of the purchase price to the Defendant.
B. Around June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to cancel the above sales contract, and to return KRW 30,000,000,000, out of the sales price already paid, until July 31, 2015, KRW 10,000,000 until September 30, 2015.
C. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s successor seized the Plaintiff’s instant claim against the Defendant by designating the Defendant as the third obligor for the enforcement and preservation of the Plaintiff’s national tax delinquent amounting to KRW 104,309,880, which was pending in the instant lawsuit. On March 21, 2016, the notice of the attachment of the said claim was issued to the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff has a claim for 30,000,000 won against the Defendant and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. Meanwhile, the seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits all acts of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc., against the creditor and debtor of the seized claims, and collects them on behalf of the debtor in arrears. Thus, the third debtor cannot repay the attached claims to the delinquent taxpayer, and can only perform the attached claims only to the country which is the collection right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686, May 14, 199). If there is a seizure and collection order on claims, only the collection right holder may file a lawsuit for performance against the third debtor, and the debtor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee.