2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

Main claim: Defendant BB Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant BB Bank”)

J. (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") and the Appointeds shall pay to them 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Preliminary Claim: Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the Plaintiff and the appointed parties the amount of each claim stated in the above attached Form No. 10 and 5% interest per annum from December 21, 2010 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The plaintiff and the designated parties, as creditors of MaD, received each claim against the defendant-BB bank in the name of MaD (Account Number OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OOOO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

However, Defendant BB Bank received the disposition of seizure of claims against each of the above claims in the name of ○○ Tax Office, ○○ Tax Office, and ○○○ Military Office as listed below, and paid the amount in arrears of the PPCC on December 21, 2010 upon the request of the above tax authority for collection. The remainder of the OOOOO on December 22, 2010 deposited the Plaintiff and the designated parties with ○ District Court as the principal deposit.

[Contents of Disposition on Default] - Court Decision 3 pages

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 (written order of provisional seizure), Gap evidence 2 (including provisional seizure; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 4 (decision of seizure), Gap evidence 5 (written order of seizure), Gap evidence 6 ( inquiry into fact), Eul evidence 1 through 8 (Notice of Claim Attachment, Each attachment report, each collection request, each collection request, each notice of cancellation of attachment), the purport of all pleadings, the whole purport of arguments.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the tax authority did not have a situation that each of the above claims is owned by Jung-gu, the delinquent taxpayer, at the time when the tax authority made a disposition on default on each of the above claims against the Maximum DB bank, it is not effective as repayment of each of the above claims.

Therefore, the defendant BB bank has a duty to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the above amount in arrears to the plaintiff and the selected person who is the collection right holder.

Preliminaryly, in the event that the payment of the delinquent amount by the Defendant BB bank is effective as repayment, the Defendant Republic of Korea should first pay the amount received to the Plaintiff and the designated parties in advance pursuant to Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act, but he first appropriated the amount in arrears. Therefore, the obligation to return it to the Plaintiff and the designated parties with unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

(a) The primary claim

1) According to Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, when a tax authority notifies a third-party obligor that a delinquent taxpayer’s claim is seized, the tax authority shall subrogate the delinquent to the extent of the delinquent amount.

The effect of seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits an obligee and obligor subject to seizure from performing all acts of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc. of claims, and makes collection on behalf of a delinquent taxpayer. Thus, a garnishee cannot repay claims subject to seizure to a delinquent taxpayer, and only can it be performed to the State that is the person subject to collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686, May 14, 1999).

In light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiff and the designated parties with respect to each of the above claims against the least DB bank in the name of the defendant BB bank executed provisional seizure, the payment of the amount in arrears by the defendant B bank to the Republic of Korea as the collection right holder under the above National Tax Collection Act shall be effective as the repayment of the above claim unless there are special circumstances that the tax authority's disposition of seizure of claims is invalid.

2) For an administrative disposition to become null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively apparent that the defect is a serious violation of an essential part of the law and objectively apparent. In determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995).

However, in full view of the purport of the statement and the entire argument in Eul's evidence Nos. 9 (Determination), as to each of the above claims against the defendant BB bank in the name of the largest DD, on May 2, 2008, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision on the preservation for collection on the ground that PCC was holding the largest DD name, and the provisional attachment execution by the plaintiff and the designated parties or the disposition by the tax authorities in arrears were all based on these facts. Even after that, it was not revealed that the actual holder of each of the above claims was not a regularCC. Rather, the plaintiff and the designated parties sought the payment of the collection amount of this case against the defendants by receiving the seizure and collection order on the premise that the actual holder of each of the above claims is the actualCC.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to see that there is a defect that the tax authority's disposition on default was made against a third party's property, not the delinquent's property, and even if such defect exists in the disposition on default of the tax authority, it cannot be deemed objectively and objectively

3) Ultimately, it is valid for Defendant BB bank to pay delinquent amount to the Republic of Korea, which is a collection authority, according to the disposition by the tax authority for arrears, as repayment for each of the above claims under the largest DD name. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above repayment is null and void is not accepted.

(b) Preliminary claim

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the provisional attachment claim of the Plaintiff and the designated parties is superior to the national tax of the Defendant Republic of Korea, there is no assertion or proof as to the grounds therefor, and rather, under Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes should be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims unless they fall under the claims specified in the proviso. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the provisional attachment claim of the Plaintiff and the designated parties is prior to the national

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premised on this cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.