대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendants is dismissed respectively.
3. Defendant B.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff respectively lent to Defendant B KRW 50 million on February 5, 2008, and KRW 30 million on May 2009 to Defendant C.
B. After December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff sent each content-certified mail demanding the Defendants to repay each of the above loans by December 31, 2011, and each of the above content-certified mail was served to the Defendants around that time.
C. During the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor seized each of the instant loan claims against the Defendants by designating the Defendants as the garnishee in order to secure the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s national tax delinquency amounting to KRW 10,381,147,260. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s notification of the attachment of the claim and the Plaintiff’s request for the collection of each of the instant loan claims against the Defendants were reached to the Defendants.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Byung evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff has a claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 24, 2012 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after a considerable period of time from the time the Plaintiff urged the Defendants to repay each of the above loans.
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 claims only to the country which is the collection right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686, May 14, 199), and if there exists a seizure and collection order for the claims, it against the third debtor.