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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on June 17, 2016 in the distribution procedure for the Seoul Southern District Court 2016 Ta120, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 36,603,925, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 36,603,925, respectively.

A. On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff intended to transfer KRW 36,59,000 from the new bank account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Industrial Bank of Korea account under the name of the Plaintiff, and erroneously transferred KRW 36,59,000 to the Bank account under the name of BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “instant transfer amount”).

B. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment against Nonparty Company (hereinafter “related case”) with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012da70952 and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “related case”).

C. Meanwhile, until November 2, 2012, Nonparty Company was in arrears with the aggregate of KRW 180,928,330 as value-added tax, corporate tax, and securities transaction tax, and the Defendant seized Nonparty Company’s current and future deposit claims to be deposited in the Bank of Korea over five occasions between November 20, 209 and July 14, 2015 under the National Tax Collection Act.

D. On June 17, 2016, the distribution schedule was drawn up to be that the Defendant received the full amount of KRW 36,603,925 as a seizure authority on the date of distribution of distribution procedure 2016 another 120,000, in relation thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received a favorable judgment in the relevant case, and the transfer amount of this case is the Plaintiff’s property that is not the non-party company, and thus, the taxpayer’s property right should not be unduly infringed pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Furthermore, the non-party company’s discontinuance of business around 2008 and the seizure of the Defendant is merely an object of the claim that does not exist. Therefore, the amount of dividend

3. Determination

A. Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that national taxes, surcharges, or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims (Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff won the relevant case

B. In addition, in the case of a bank account transfer, which creates the effect of receiving cash by going through the account transfer opened at a financial institution without direct cash transfer, the deposit relationship between the payer and the receiving bank is established if the funds are transferred to the account of the recipient through the bank and the receiving bank according to the account transfer instruction by the account transfer requester. Although the legal relationship causing the account transfer between the account transfer requester and the receiving bank was not established from the beginning or the legal relationship between the account transfer requester and the receiving bank is extinguished for a certain reason after the fact, barring any special circumstance, the defect in such cause relationship cannot affect the validity of the account transfer or the account relationship between the payee and the receiving bank (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59673, Mar. 24, 2006).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept on a different premise that the transfer amount of this case is still not subject to the Plaintiff’s property or seizure.

4. Conclusion

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