2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the remainder are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of litigation incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant XX enterprises, respectively.

Preliminary, Busan District Court 201Ma516 decided August 16, 201, with respect to the distribution procedure case, the amount of dividends to the defendant XX companies among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on August 16, 201 shall be KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000,000.

A. Claims against Defendant XX enterprises KimA

On September 22, 1998, GB filed a lawsuit against KimB as Busan District Court 98Gaso157876, and the decision was finalized on October 18, 1998 that the KimB paid 00 won and the amount of local damages to 00 won, and the above decision was subsequently issued on April 28, 199, and the defendant corporation PP enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the "P enterprise") that received the claim under the above decision was granted as the successor of HB on April 27, 2001.

(b) Claims against the ParkCC of KimA;

The KimA has filed a lawsuit against ParkCC as Busan District Court 967's 66194, which had been filed for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, and on January 23, 1998 from the above litigation procedure to the above court 98M1991 on January 31, 1998, " ParkCC" was established in Busan Dongdong-dong, Busan to the extent of 00-0 forest and 12,099mm2 around the above 00-0 forest and 12,09m2 around the above 00-0 forest and 00m2,00m2 around the above 00m2 forest and 00m2,00,000m2, including the ditches around the above 00-0m2 forest and 00m2 (However, if the road construction is impossible on the above ditch, the remaining 00-0 forest and 00m2, excluding the above ditch was not implemented by the above 000m2.

However, ParkCC did not perform its duty to construct roads under the above mediation even after October 31, 1998.After all, ParkCC paid to KimA part of the damages for delay due to the said nonperformance of obligation (hereinafter “instant damages for delay”) to the KimA for the payment of damages for delay (hereinafter “instant damages for delay”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16542, Aug. 23, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 1700, Jan. 11, 2001>

(c) Fraudulent act of ParkCC;

ParkCC entered into a sales contract with HaDD on December 1, 200 to sell W 000-0 forest land in Busan Dong-dong, Busan to HadddD on 12, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in HaE’s name for forest land 000-0 and 000-0 forest land under HadDD’s name, and HadD paid the remainder of 00 won excluding the remainder of 00 won out of the above payment.

On September 19, 2002, ParkCC transferred the remainder of the claim of Park GG and Park H, one of its father’s dependants, and notified the fact of the transfer to DoD, and demanded DoD to establish a collateral security right to secure the remainder of the claim, and DoD established a joint collateral security right to Dogg and Park HH with regard to 000-0 forest and fields among the real estate purchased from DogCC.

D. The transmission execution clause of Defendant XX company

Defendant XX enterprise based on the original copy of the above Busan District Court Decision 98Gaso157876 delivered on April 11, 2003, and based on the above court 2003TT 2184, the debtor KimA, 3 debtor ParkCC, claim amount of KRW 000 (principal + interest KRW 000 + KRW 000) was issued with respect to the claim for delay damages of this case, and the above order was served to ParkCC on April 15, 2003.

Defendant XX Company, based on the above collection order, received an execution clause by succession to the instant conciliation protocol, which is the executive title with respect to the instant damages for delay, as the above court 2003Kaga1660 on May 9, 2003.

E. The plaintiff's succession execution clause

On May 12, 2004, KimA notified the Plaintiff on April 30, 2004 of the instant damages for delay (i.e., KRW 000 won (=00 won-00 won) minus KRW 000 paid from ParkCC, and the total amount of KRW 000 per month that will occur in the future (as described in paragraph (b) above, the actual amount of the transferred claim was paid in addition to KRW 000 and KRW 00 won per month from May 1, 2004) and the above transfer was notified to ParkCC on August 24, 2004, but the above Defendant was not served at the time when the content-certified mail was sent, and thereafter, the assignment of claim was made oral and oral. < Amended by Act No. 7200, Aug. 23, 1999>

The Plaintiff acquired the claim for damages for delay of this case as above, and was also granted the succeeding execution clause to the conciliation protocol of this case around 2005.

F. The occurrence of the claim to pay the deposit of this case

Of the real estate purchased from LDD, the above 112-3, 4, 6, and 11 of the real estate purchased from LDD, the Busan District Court deposited KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for dividends and interest on August 6, 2004, which was the date of distribution, with respect to the above 1112-3, 4, and 11 of the real estate auction procedure for the above 103,325 of the Busan District Court around 2003, the date of distribution. However, the above court official deposited the above dividends and interest on August 20, 204 under Article 160 (2) of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the right to claim the payment of the above deposit").

(g) Judgment on revocation of fraudulent act;

Defendant XX, with respect to a suit for revocation of a fraudulent act filed by the Plaintiff against Park G and Park H, Busan District Court Branch of Dong Branch of Busan District Court 2004Gahap2624, Defendant XX participated as an independent party to the suit for revocation of a fraudulent act. Since the assignment of claims to Park G and Park H is a fraudulent act, the assignment of claims to Park G and ParkH was revoked, and restitution was sought.

On November 10, 2005, the above court accepted part of the claim between the defendant XX enterprise and the plaintiff, and calculated the amount of the defendant XX enterprise's preserved claim as KRW 000,000, the plaintiff's preserved claim amount as KRW 000, and revoked the assignment of claim between ParkCC and Park G and Park HH within the limit of KRW 000,000, which is the aggregate of the above amounts, and sentenced ParkG and Park HH to the ruling that they expressed their intent to transfer the right to claim the deposit of this case to ParkCC, and notified the defendant Republic of Korea of that purport (hereinafter "the ruling revoking the fraudulent act of this case"). The decision of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case became final and conclusive after the appeal period has elapsed following the Supreme Court's rejection of appeal petition (Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na2183, 205Na21890), and the second appeal against the defendant XX enterprise's immediate appeal (No. 2007Ma10360).

After that, on January 31, 2008, Park G and Park H notified that Park G and Park H transferred the right to claim the instant deposit to ParkCC according to the purport of the above judgment by content-certified mail with the Republic of Korea (the competent jurisdiction: the public official in charge of cash other than the Busan District Court's revenue and expenditure) as receiver.

H. Seizure and collection of the Plaintiff and Defendant XX companies’ right to claim the deposit of this case

On May 8, 2006, under the instant protocol, Defendant XX enterprise was issued a seizure and collection order as to the claim for the deposit money of this case by the debtor ParkCC, the garnishee, the defendant Republic of Korea, and the claim amount of KRW 155,145,412 from the above court under the instant protocol of mediation as the above court 2006TT5804.

As of November 25, 2005, the Plaintiff received a provisional seizure order against the claim amount of the instant deposit amount of KRW 000,000 from the debtor ParkCC, the garnishee debtor, the defendant Republic of Korea, and the claim amount of KRW 200,000. The decision was served on the defendant Republic of Korea at that time, and on November 13, 2006, based on the instant protocol of mediation, the debtor Park CC, the garnishee debtor, the defendant Republic of Korea, and the claim amount of KRW 15038 of the above court as of November 13, 2006. The above provisional seizure against the instant deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00

I. Seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea

On the other hand, ParkCC reported and did not pay the transfer income tax corresponding to the 2000 capital gains tax (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer income tax claim of this case"), and the Busan Jin-si decided on April 30, 201 as the payment deadline and notified it to ParkCC on April 7, 2001. Nevertheless, ParkCC did not pay the said transfer income tax amount of KRW 000,000, but the defendant Republic of Korea (competent authority: Busan Jin-si Office) seized 000 out of the deposit claim of this case of ParkCC on February 27, 2007 (=the above transfer income tax amount of KRW 000 + additional dues of KRW 000 up to the date of seizure).

(j) Preparation of the instant distribution schedule

The Busan District Court established the distribution procedure of the instant deposit (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution procedure”) under 201ta71516. On August 16, 201, the distribution procedure of the instant distribution procedure: (a) on the first priority of the amount to be distributed by adding interest thereto to the instant deposit and deducting the execution cost; (b) KRW 000, the total amount of the amount claimed to be delivered to the Busan District Tax Office; (c) the amount of the claim to be distributed to the Defendant XX company in proportion to the amount of each claim as the secondary collection right holder; and (d) the distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”); and (c) the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant case and raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant Republic of Korea and the Defendant XX company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1-3, 5 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As of April 7, 2001, the transfer income tax claim of this case was established, as of April 7, 2001, because the exclusion period or extinctive prescription expires after five years from the date under the Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes cannot be imposed, and thus, dividends to the Defendant Republic of Korea should not be made. Accordingly, 00 won distributed to the Defendant Republic of Korea should be distributed in proportion to the amount of the claim amount of the Plaintiff and the Defendant XX enterprise. However, during the distribution procedure of this case, dividends was made on the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim amount was KRW 00 (the Defendant XX enterprise was KRW 00), but the part seized and collected by the Plaintiff out of the claim for deposit money of this case was KRW 00,00,000 (the Plaintiff’s claim amount was KRW 00,000 + KRW 000) and KRW 00,000, which is distributed to the Plaintiff should be changed from the first place to the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

B. Determination on exclusion Period

The Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the commencement date of the exclusion period of the right to impose capital gains tax, irrespective of the establishment date of the obligation to pay capital gains tax, and the exclusion period shall expire when the period from June 1 of the year following the transfer date of the relevant asset, which is the next day from the expiration date of the period of final return of tax base, is proceeding and five years thereafter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du3140, Jun. 22, 1999).

According to the above facts and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (wholly), the transfer income tax claim of this case was not paid after the report was made on December 27, 2000 with respect to the transfer of the forest land, etc. owned by the ParkCC, and the notification of tax payment on April 7, 2001, which is within five years by the defendant Republic of Korea, was in compliance with the exclusion period regardless of the legal meaning of the notification. Even if the seizure of the plaintiff's assertion was made more than five years after the notification of tax payment, and is null and void as it goes beyond the exclusion period, the above seizure is not a "national tax, not a "national tax," and there is no room to apply the exclusion period.

C. Determination on extinctive prescription (determination on Defendant’s defense to interrupt extinctive prescription in the Republic of Korea)

The transfer income tax claim of this case is a national tax and its period of extinctive prescription is five years pursuant to Article 27 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. As seen earlier, the payment period of the transfer income tax claim of this case was April 30, 2001, and the Defendant Republic of Korea’s seizure was completed on February 27, 2007 after five years passed from the seizure date of the Republic of Korea. However, according to the evidence No. 4-1 of the above, the Defendant Republic of Korea could recognize the completion of the seizure registration on June 3, 2002 on the x 6m2, Busan-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, 200-0-0, under the ground for the seizure registration completed on June 3, 2002. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense was justified.

In the end, the plaintiff's primary claim is without reason to examine further.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the distribution of the dividends to Defendant Republic of Korea is lawful, the distribution schedule of this case, which is calculated by dividing the remaining amount of the Defendant’s dividends to Defendant Republic of Korea, with the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim at KRW 000,000, not the amount of the claim at KRW 000, should be calculated as the Plaintiff’s claim amount at KRW 00,000, and the amount of the dividends to the Plaintiff should be changed to KRW 000,000, respectively.

B. Determination

The fact that Defendant XX enterprise received a seizure and collection order against the claim for the damages for delay of this case with the claim amount of KRW 000,000, and the Plaintiff received from KimA the money at the rate of KRW 000 out of the claim for the damages for delay of this case and KRW 000,000 each month from May 1, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Mar. 1, 2004; 200,000 won based on the instant protocol of mediation) and received the seizure and collection order against the claim for the damages for delay of this case with the claim amount of KRW 00,00 among the claims for damages for delay of this case

Therefore, the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim to participate in the distribution of dividends is KRW 000 (=00 + KRW 000 + KRW 0000 + KRW 0000). From the amount to be actually distributed in the distribution procedure of this case, the remainder of KRW 000, excluding the amount of dividends to the Defendant’s Republic of Korea (=00 won-00 + KRW 000) is divided in proportion to the Plaintiff and the Defendant-owned enterprise, the Plaintiff shall receive 00 won [the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim to participate in the distribution of dividends + KRW 000 + KRW 000 of the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim to participate in the distribution of dividends + KRW 000], and the Defendant-owned company shall receive 00 [the amount of KRW 00 [the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim to participate in the distribution of dividends + KRW 000 + KRW 0000]].

C. Determination on Defendant XX company’s defense

1) Defendant XX company’s defense

Defendant XX enterprise is null and void of the execution clause of succession to the instant conciliation protocol received by the Plaintiff for the following reasons. Since the seizure and collection order regarding the instant claim for the deposit money received by the Plaintiff is null and void, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no claim to be distributed in the instant dividend procedure.

Defendant XX enterprise first received an execution clause for succession to the instant protocol of conciliation than the Plaintiff, and the said succeeding execution clause does not limit the scope thereof. Accordingly, all of the instant damages for delay as stipulated in the said protocol of conciliation were transferred to the Defendant XX enterprise, and the succeeding execution clause for the instant protocol of conciliation received after the Plaintiff is null and void.

The Plaintiff’s transfer of part of the damages for delay of this case’s claim from KimA constitutes an overlapping assumption of obligation from the standpoint of ParkCC, and the overlapping assumption of obligation is the existence of the party’s obligation and its separate obligation, and thus does not constitute a “Successor” subject to the grant of the execution clause. Thus, the succeeding execution clause on the instant protocol received by the Plaintiff is null and void.

2) Determination

In order to collect the claim amount of the instant damages for delay based on the collection order that Defendant XX enterprise received as KRW 000, the scope of the right to collect the instant damages for delay was limited to KRW 000, and Defendant XX enterprise’s right to collect the instant damages for delay was limited to KRW 000, and the instant damages for delay confirmed under the instant conciliation agreement constitutes a claim that can be divided. Although there is no indication that the scope of the right to claim is limited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64810, Feb. 14, 2003), even if there is no indication that the scope of the right to claim is limited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64810, Feb. 14, 2003), Defendant XX enterprise’s right to enforce succession

The legal principle asserted in relation to the assumption of overlapping obligation by Defendant XX enterprise is the Supreme Court Order 2009Da196 Decided January 14, 2010. However, the above decision is related to the obligor’s application for succession execution clause with the obligee’s new obligor who takes over the obligation after the obligor’s change after the final and conclusive judgment was rendered, and it does not apply to this case that the obligee changes. Furthermore, since the assignment of the claim constitutes a disposition of classical dispositive act, the assignment of the claim constitutes an obligation of classical dispositive act, the obligee’s transfer of the claim of this case to the Plaintiff cannot be seen as a “intermediate relationship.”

Ultimately, the defendant XX company's defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Among the conjunctive claim, the part that should change the amount of dividends to the defendant XX company as KRW 000,000, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff as KRW 000,000, among the distribution schedule of this case is justified, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.