2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2013, the filing date of the instant lawsuit, Kim ○, Inc., the Plaintiff had the amount in arrears of KRW 233,778,060, capital gains tax on the Plaintiff.

B. On February 9, 2011, Kim ○○ (hereinafter “the date of the instant sales contract”) agreed to sell the land listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of attached Table 1 to the Defendant in the purchase price of KRW 786,400,000 (hereinafter “the instant purchase price”), and Kim △△△△ also sold the land listed in paragraph (5) of attached Table 5 to the Defendant on the same day to the Defendant in the price of KRW 120,00,000,000, out of the total purchase price of KRW 906,40,000,000, out of the total purchase price of KRW 906,40,000, which is the date of the sales contract, to pay the balance of KRW 806,400,000 to the Defendant on March 8, 2011, which is the date of the sales contract.

C. The Defendant: (a) 331,764,426 of the purchase price to Kim○○ for repayment of the loan; and (b) △△△△.

5,069,978 won was paid respectively.

D. From September 7, 2010 to November 24, 2011, the Defendant’s total account at Kim○-○ through 16 times.

37,00,000 won was deposited.

E. On April 2, 2012, the head of a tax office notified the Defendant of the seizure of the above purchase price claim against the Defendant pursuant to Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and notified the Defendant of the seizure of the above purchase price claim, and thereafter, notified the Defendant of the payment of the above obligation by April 10, 2012. On June 18, 2012, the head of a tax office notified the Defendant’s spouse KimA, his/her spouse, to perform the above obligation by June 21, 2012, and notified the Defendant of the payment of the above obligation by June 21, 2012, and notified the Defendant of the payment of the obligation by July 5, 2012. However, the Defendant did not perform the above obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) the order from the Defendant to repay the instant loans of KRW 786,400,000 from the Defendant

At KRW 337,00,00, which received 331,764,426 won, and ② at KRW 337,00,00,00, which received from the account of Gim○, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Defendant the remaining purchase price claim of KRW 64,930,02 (the sale price of KRW 120,00,000 - the sale price of KRW 55,069,978, which was received as a repayment order for loans - the remainder of KRW 272,069,978). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Defendant for the delayed payment of KRW 182,565,596 (the remaining amount of KRW 786,40,00 - KRW 3331,764,426 - 272,069,978) to the Defendant by subrogation of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Of the purchase price of this case 786,40,00 won, the Defendant paid 331,764,426 won, which was paid to ○○○○ in terms of loan repayment (hereinafter referred to as “the portion of payment made in the account”) and 71,764,426 won (hereinafter referred to as “the portion of payment made in cash payment”) in total 771,764,426 won (31,764,426 won + 337,00,000 won + 103,00,000 won). Accordingly, the purchase price of this case was extinguished within the scope of the above 771,764,426 won, which was paid in cash.

C. Determination

(1) As to the portion of the payment made in the account:

The part deposited by the Defendant before February 9, 201, which was the date of the instant sales contract, to the account of Kim○-○ and the part deposited after the fact are divided.

A) The portion deposited after the date of the instant sales contract

The purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: Gap evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 6-2, 3, 5 through 10-10;

In combination, the Defendant’s payment of total of KRW 268,00,000 to Kim ○, from March 12, 2011 to November 24, 2011, which was after the date of the instant sales contract, is recognized. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition as above. The Plaintiff asserted that the above KRW 268,00,000 was first appropriated for the Defendant’s obligation to pay the purchase price to Kim △△△△△△, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

B) The portion deposited before the date of the instant sales contract

According to the statements in Gap evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, and 4, the defendant on September 7, 2010

From December 21, 2010 to December 21, 2010, it may be recognized that the sum of KRW 69,000,000 has been deposited in the account of Kim○○○ through six times. However, on the other hand, the date of the instant sales contract was February 9, 201, as seen earlier, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant paid the said KRW 69,00,000 to Kim○○ for the payment of the instant sales price, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) As to the portion of cash payment

Each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 7, as shown in the above argument by the Defendant, is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each statement in the evidence No. 4, i.e., the head of the BB tax office, upon investigating the details of payment of the purchase price in this case, requested the Defendant to verify and answer the portion of cash payments, and the Defendant’s reply did not have any part of cash payments, and the Defendant did not submit all the materials proving the source of cash payments, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff delay damages at a rate of 20% per annum from November 2, 2013 to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which the Plaintiff seeks performance within the limit of 186,635,574 won ( KRW 786,40,00,000 - 331,764,426 - 268,000), up to the limit of 182,565,596 won, which the Plaintiff seeks performance by subrogation of Kim○, pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.