2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by all of the first and second instances, including those resulting from the participation in the lawsuit.

(a) Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1 and 2-1, 2, and 3-15 respectively.

(1) On February 5, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for performance guarantee, each of the insurance period from February 5, 1996 to September 20 of the same year (in the case of the performance of the contract) and each of the insurance period, the insurance period of which is KRW 682,00,000 (in the case of the performance of the contract), as the insured, for the purpose of ensuring the performance of the contract for the production and installation of house facilities concluded with the non-party Han Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and the non-party Han Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the contract for the performance of the contract and the implementation of the advance payment (in the case of the performance of the contract, from February 21, 1996 to September 20 of the same year (in the case of the performance of the contract).

(2) In entering into the above performance guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the non-party Gyeongdo agreed to pay the insurance money and damages for delay to the Plaintiff when the non-party Do did not perform its obligation under the above construction contract. On February 29, 1996, the non-party Do established a pledge against the claim of KRW 100,000,000 against the non-party Do's welfare deposit against the non-party 1 bank as the pledgee in order to secure the above performance guarantee obligation.

(3) On March 8, 1996, the non-party Gyeong-do replaced the above deposit with the non-party 1 bank with a specified money trust deposit (amounting to 100,017,537) for the same bank, and the maturity of which comes after the new establishment of a pledge for the plaintiff's claim. Upon the plaintiff's permission, the non-party 10,000,000 won was withdrawn from the defendant bank, including interest accrued until March 18, 1997, and then the defendant bank notified the plaintiff as a pledgee again on the 19th day of the same month. The non-party Do also notified the defendant bank that the non-party 10,00,000 won was established as a fixed deposit (the certificate number of March 18, 1998; 877-10-0465-71) and the defendant bank notified the plaintiff as a pledgee on the 19th day of the same month.

(4) In establishing each of the above pledges between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, even before the Plaintiff paid the above insurance money, the Plaintiff agreed to exercise the right of pledge upon the occurrence of the grounds for exercising the right of pledge due to the suspension of the current account transaction of the Plaintiff’s Gyeong-do. Nonparty Gyeong-do was unable to implement the above construction contract any longer due to the deterioration of business management around May 19, 197. Accordingly, the said construction contract was revoked for the Plaintiff on the 27th of the same month, and the Plaintiff claimed for payment of KRW 713,382,00 of the insurance money in accordance with the above performance guarantee insurance contract.

B. Determination on priority of national tax claims

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the pledgee of the instant deposit claim in order to exercise in advance the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages against the non-party 10,000,000, which may arise from the Plaintiff’s payment of the above insurance money to Korea Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., and the Defendant bank claimed that the Defendant bank would seek payment of the above deposit money from the Defendant bank as the pledgee of the instant deposit claim in order to compensate for damages against the non-party 1,10,000,000. Accordingly, the Defendant bank asserted that the instant deposit claim was seized by the Defendant’s Intervenor on July 21, 1997 and received the above seizure from the time of the seizure. As such, the Defendant bank cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim until the right holder becomes final and conclusive because the instant deposit claim cannot be determined by the legitimate right holder of the said deposit claim. The Defendant seized the instant deposit claim against the Defendant bank in order to collect the value-added tax on the non-party 19

In light of the above purport of evidence No. 1-1, No. 2-1, and No. 2-1, and No. 2-2, respectively, the non-party 1 and No. 8-1. According to the above legal reasoning, the non-party 2, who declared the non-party 1 to the defendant 1 to whom the National Tax Collection Act was attached, reported No. 89,873,580 won as value-added tax for the second period of Jan. 25, 1997 and did not pay the remainder of No. 750,00 won to the non-party 3-1, the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1 to whom the non-party 3 was liable, to whom the non-party 1 had already been liable to pay the non-party 1 to the non-party 3-party 4, who is the non-party 1 to whom the National Tax Collection Act had been attached, the non-party 2's claim against the non-party 3-party 1 shall be notified.

C. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of an exception to the priority of national tax claims

On February 29, 196, the Plaintiff’s pledge right against the instant deposit claim is identical to the pledge right established against the non-party 1 bank on February 29, 1996 on the non-party 1 bank’s interest-based time deposit claim, and on March 8, 1996, the above pledge right is established prior to the statutory due date for value-added tax. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim secured by the above pledge right under Article 35(1)3 proviso of the Framework Act on National Taxes is asserted to have priority over the Defendant’s national tax claim. Thus, Article 35(1)3 proviso of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if national tax or additional dues are collected from the sale price of property for which the fact that the establishment of the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge right, or mortgage is proved before the due date for national tax payment, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis is limited to the Plaintiff’s registered claim against the non-party 3.

In addition, even if the pledge right against the deposit claim of this case is applicable to the registration or registered pledge right under the proviso of Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, value-added tax is the national tax for which the tax base and tax amount to be paid for each taxable period or the tax amount to be paid to the head of the competent tax office within 25 days after the end of the taxable period pursuant to the provision of Article 19 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. According to the proviso of Article 35 (1) 3 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax amount reported by the debtor for the final tax return within the above statutory period after the expiration of the taxable period is determined as the statutory due date for the pertinent tax amount to be paid by the return of the tax base and tax amount, the above claim for value-added tax was established for the above 10-day deposit claim of the above 190-day deposit claim of the above 190-day deposit claim of the above 190-day deposit claim of this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is unfair with different conclusions, and thus it is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Young-hoon (Presiding Judge)