2. The plaintiff's remaining main claims and conjunctive claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the litigation costs, 10% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with the amount of KRW 900,000,000,000 per annum from May 28, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case from June 3, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

Preliminary claim: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 and the amount of KRW 900,000,000,000 per annum from June 27, 2016, and for KRW 100,000,00 per annum from June 20, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case, 5% per annum from June 20, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

○ On February 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a cashier’s check of KRW 1850 million (one cashier’s check of KRW 100 million) to this, and on February 3, 2016, a total of KRW 200 million cashier’s checks of KRW 200 million (one cashier’s check of KRW 10 million) to this, and on May 24, 2016, the following:

On May 24, 2016, ○A was in arrears with KRW 1,478,05,580 in total amount of KRW 100,237,960 in comprehensive real estate holding tax and capital gains tax of KRW 1,377,767,620 in total amount.

○ Under the premise that the right on a check was extinguished due to the lapse of ten days from the date of issuance of all the instant checks, the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control of the Plaintiff’s head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) seized the right to claim reimbursement of 1 billion won against the Defendant acquired by thisA; and (b) notified the Defendant of the attachment thereof; (c) until May 27, 2016, the notice of attachment containing the statement that the right to claim reimbursement of benefits relating to each of the checks listed in Nos. 10 to 199 was delivered to the Defendant on May 27, 2016; and (d) regarding the right to claim reimbursement of benefits relating to each of the checks listed in No. 10 to 199, Jun. 2, 2016, the notice of attachment containing the statement that payment was made to the Defendant by June 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s seizure of the right to claim reimbursement of 1 billion won acquired by the Plaintiff, the delinquent taxpayer, and then notified the Defendant, the third obligor, to that effect. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to claim reimbursement of 1 billion won by subrogation of the Plaintiff within the scope of the delinquent amount of thisA. In addition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above 1 billion won and the damages for delay (the primary cause of claim). In addition, even though the Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff the amount of the above claim for reimbursement of 1 billion won within the delinquent amount of thisA upon receipt of the notification of seizure twice from the Plaintiff, the Defendant was obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the above claim for reimbursement of 1 billion won from June 20, 2016 to June 27, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to each of the instant checks (the cause of preliminary claim).

3. Relevant legal principles and the issues of the instant case

In a case where the right arising out of a check terminates due to the lapse of the time limit for presentment for payment, etc., the holder of the check can exercise the right to claim reimbursement of benefit against the drawer, etc. (see Article 63 of the Check Act). However, the right to claim reimbursement of benefit is a nominative claim. However, an act of a bank or other financial institution to transfer a check with the lapse of the time limit for presentation by a bank or other financial institution, in addition to the right to claim payment of the amount of the check and the right to claim reimbursement of benefit arising out of the extinction of the right on the check, shall give the issuer the right to notify the transfer to the holder on behalf of the holder (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 70Da2462, Jan. 13, 1976).

With respect to the instant case, both the Plaintiff’s primary claim and the conjunctive claim are premised upon the premise that thisA had a right to claim reimbursement of benefit relating to each of the instant checks by holding the said checks at the time when the period for presentment of payment for each of the instant checks expires, and thereafter, thisA still holds a right to claim reimbursement of benefit relating to each of the instant checks until the notification of seizure of the Plaintiff’s right to claim reimbursement of benefit reaches the Defendant. As such, in order to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, this ought to be proved first that thisA had a separate check from the time when the period for presentment of payment for each of the instant checks was over to the time when the Plaintiff’s notification of seizure was delivered to the Defendant.

4. Determination

A. As to the expiration of the time limit for presentment for payment of each of the instant checks

Article 29(4) of the Check Act provides that a check to be issued and payable in Korea shall be presented within 10 days (see Article 29(1) of the Check Act). Article 29(4) of the Check Act provides that when a check differs between the date on which the check is actually issued and the date on which the check is issued, the period of presentation shall be calculated based on the date on which the check is issued, in calculating the period of presentation. In accordance with the general principle of Article 61 of the Check Act, the date on which the check is issued shall not be counted as the first day, but shall be counted from the following day (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da1000, Apr. 13, 1982). According to the above evidence, each of the instant checks is a check issued and payable in Korea, and each of the checks listed in Nos. 1 through 9 is 10 to 20.16.16.16.21, counting from the 20th day following the 10th day following the date of issuance.26.16.216.

B. As to whether this AA possesses each of the instant checks

1) Each check listed in the table 1 to 9 above

In full view of the following facts or circumstances, it is reasonable to recognize that thisA had each of the several marks listed in the above table 1 or 9, from February 11, 2016, the expiration date of the payment presentation period, until May 27, 2016, which were possessed by the Defendant, as well as the evidence mentioned above, and the evidence and images mentioned in the above evidence and evidence mentioned in the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15, which were known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the testimony made by EA, EA, B, and LACC, and the testimony made by EA, B, and LACC, it was reasonable that thisA had held each of the marks listed in the above table 1 or 9 during the above period.

Around November 10, 2014, ○○○ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ General Construction”) received a decision to permit sale at around KRW 6.1 billion in the instant auction procedure on May 16, 2016, with respect to ten parcels owned by thisA (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”), and around KRW 1.85 billion in total issued by thisA on February 1, 2016, the cashier’s checks total amounting to KRW 600 million in the instant auction procedure were used as ○○ General Construction Deposit around May 9, 2016.

On June 24, 2016, 2016, ○○○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 500 million. The B used the said KRW 500 million as the auction proceeds at the auction procedure of this case.

At the time when each check listed in the table 1 or 5 above was presented on June 24, 2016, thisA visited the two branches of corporate banks at the same time with 0D, and thisA did not explain the reason why 0D was sent to the two branches of corporate banks at the time when 0D was given testimony in this court, and there was no other reason to regard 0D as the holder of each of the above checks at the time. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that thisA continued to hold the above check until June 24, 2016, which was the date when each check was presented for payment Nos. 1 or 5 above table 5.

○○ Witness E.A. only stated that there was a few books of cashier’s checks before making visit to the two branches of corporate banks, and does not answer to the specific time and amount of issuance of cashier’s checks. As such, this witness’s testimony does not interfere with the recognition of the fact that this A.A.’s testimony was held from February 11, 2016, which was the expiration date of the payment presentation period, from February 27, 2016 to May 27, 2016, by which the notice of seizure was delivered to the Defendant.

On June 27, 2016, ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. transferred the sum of KRW 400 million in face value of each check to the agricultural cooperative account under the name of ○○ Construction, by presenting each check as payment at the Defendant’s branch. The said KRW 400 million was used for auction proceeds in the instant auction procedure.

Each check mentioned above Nos. 6 through 9 was issued from thisA to this B, which is the representative director of ○○ Construction, via ParkCC. According to the witness ParkCC’s testimony, ParkCC received each of the above checks from thisA as part of the construction cost, which is an investor of 'EEE', and it was proposed that 00D was invested in the auction procedure of this case by purchasing land in the name of ○○ Construction, and making a factory. The check was delivered from this case’s auction procedure at the time of delivery of each of the above checks from this A to this B. The above checks were delivered about 10 days prior to the outstanding payment date, and it was difficult to conclude that 00 days prior to the outstanding payment date of 20 days prior to this case’s auction procedure from this case’s holding at least 10 days prior to each of the above several checks for a long period of time, and it was difficult to deliver the above checks to this B. 6.26.26.16.26.26.

The witness B testified that "B received the check from ParkCC on May 9, 2016, which was the date of the auction of the auction procedure of this case." However, this is inconsistent with the witness ParkCC's testimony that issued each number of tickets listed in No. 6 or No. 9 of the above table to thisB before the due date for the remainder payment. The witness B paid the balance in the auction procedure of this case at first in this court. The witnessB testified that "B did not directly participate in the payment of the balance," but this testimony that "B himself made the presentation of each number of tickets listed in No. 6 or No. 9 of the above table at the Defendant's inner point on June 27, 2016, which was the due date for the remainder payment." However, it is difficult to reverse the witness's testimony to the purport that the witness B made the remainder payment to this effect.

2) Each check listed in the sequence 10 to 19 above table.

ThisA. From February 13, 2016 to June 2, 2016, the date of presentment 10 to 19, the Plaintiff’s respective checks were issued from February 13, 2016 to June 2, 2016, and if the purport of the entire evidence of this case is added to 0D 10 to 100 to 100 won cashier’s checks issued from the Defendant’s beginning point of 6th to 19th 79 out of 79. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the above checks were issued from 6th 9th 6th 9th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 196th 6th 6th 196th 6th 6th 6th 6th 196th 6th 6th 6th 6th 2016 to the Defendant’s total 9th 7000 million 3th 3th 6th 6th 3000.

C. The defendant's duty to pay the collection money to the plaintiff

In case where a claim is seized by the head of a tax office in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the obligor of the seized claim cannot repay the obligation to the obligee. Meanwhile, if the head of a tax office subrogated the obligee by notifying the obligor of the attachment pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the obligee of the seized claim shall be deemed to have acquired the right to collect the claim. Thus, if the obligor of the seized claim becomes due, he shall be liable to perform it to the head of a tax office, which is the subrogation obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2476, Apr. 1

According to the above facts, thisA, as a lawful holder of each check listed in the Nos. 1 through 9 above, lost the right to the check against the defendant who is the drawer on February 12, 2016, which is the day following the expiry date of the payment proposal period, and the defendant exempted the payment of each check, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the face value of each check, thisA shall be deemed to have acquired the defendant's right to claim reimbursement of 90 million won in total from the face value of each check listed in Nos. 1 through 9 above table. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's right to claim reimbursement of 40 million won against the third party obligor, who is the third party obligor, notified the above right to claim reimbursement of 50 million won in total, and from May 27, 2016 to May 27, 2016, the notice of seizure including the duty to claim reimbursement of 100 million won in subrogation of the defendant's right to claim reimbursement of 200 million won in accordance with the above Paragraph 15 of the National Tax Collection Act.

D. Sub-committee

Of the Plaintiff’s primary claims, each of the checks listed in the Nos. 1 through 9 above is with merit, and it is dismissed without merit as to each check listed in the Nos. 10 through 19 above. As seen above, this part of the Plaintiff’s primary claims are dismissed on the ground that this part of the check was not proved to have been possessed by the Defendant from February 13, 2016, which was the expiration date of the payment deadline, until June 2, 2016, by which this part of the check was delivered. Thus, inasmuch as this part of the Plaintiff’s primary claims were dismissed on the ground that this part was not proved to have been possessed by the Defendant from February 13, 2016, which was the expiration date of the payment deadline, this part of the primary claims premised on the possession of each corresponding check during the said period, and without merit, this part of

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining primary claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed as they are without merit.