2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea, BBB corporation is all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or evidence A, Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, and 3,

Each entry of Eul evidence 1 shall be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

A. Attachment of Defendant Republic of Korea’s subsidy claim

On December 15, 2012, Defendant BBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”) did not pay the total amount of KRW OB and KRW OB of the Special Rural Development Tax, which was due date for payment. On December 28, 2012, Defendant BBB attached the claim for subsidies for installation of storage and cooling equipment (hereinafter “the instant subsidy claim”) to DefendantCC within the limit of the total amount of the respective national taxes collected, and notified DefendantCC.

B. Plaintiff’s attachment of subsidy claim of this case

On September 30, 2012, Defendant BB did not pay the KRW OB, which is the due date for payment. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff attached the instant subsidy claim within the scope of the amount of the property tax collected by Defendant CB with the amount of the additional KRW OB added to the unpaid property tax as the claim amount, and notified the DefendantCC thereof.

(c)the repayment deposit of DefendantCC;

On March 28, 2013, DefendantCC sent an opinion to the effect that Defendant BBB’s claim of the instant grant is a subsidy to which the Subsidy Management Act applies, and thus the seizure of each of the instant grant claims by the Plaintiff and Defendant Republic of Korea has no effect, and that the Plaintiff and Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be duly aware of the creditors entitled to receive reimbursement, DefendantCC deposited OB as the Seoul Central District Court 2013 GeumOO on the ground that the Plaintiff, Defendant Republic of Korea, and Defendant BBB as the principal deposit (hereinafter “instant reimbursement deposit”).

D. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

The defendant Republic of Korea filed a lawsuit against the defendantCC to the effect that it would pay the instant subsidy to the defendant Republic of Korea (Seoul Central District Court 2013 ConsolidatedOO, hereinafter referred to as "related lawsuit"), and the court of first instance rendered a judgment to dismiss the defendant's claim for the instant subsidy on the ground that it is prohibited from seizure due to its nature, such as that it constitutes a subsidy to which the Subsidy Management Act applies, and that the payment deposit of this case by the defendantCC is valid. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

2. Whether the lawsuit against the DefendantCC is lawful

The payment deposit in this case by the defendantCC is the relative and unaffortable deposit made by the plaintiff, the defendant, the Republic of Korea, and the defendant BB under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code. In order for the plaintiff to receive the payment of the above deposit, the plaintiff must submit the deposit payment claim along with "a document proving that the plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of the deposit" under Article 9 (1) of the Deposit Act and Article 33 (2) of the Deposit Rules, and the "a document proving the existence of the right to claim the payment" refers to the original document proving the consent of the defendant, the Republic of Korea, the defendant BBB, or the legal relationship against them.

Therefore, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation against DefendantCC, who is not the principal deposit, that the claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit is the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting the rights.

3. Judgment on Defendant BB’s main defense to safety

Defendant BBB’s claim for collection against DefendantCC by Defendant Republic of Korea was dismissed in the relevant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful against the res judicata effect of the above judgment.

However, the plaintiff is not a party to the lawsuit or a successor after the conclusion of pleadings, and the res judicata effect of the above judgment does not affect the plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant BBB’s defense before the merits is without merit.

4. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Korea and BB

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case, which confirms that the Defendant Republic of Korea and BB, who is the other beneficiary of the instant repayment deposit, has the right to claim the withdrawal of the instant repayment deposit against the Defendant Republic of Korea and BB, is valid under the premise that the seizure of the Plaintiff’s claim of the instant payment is valid. Therefore, we examine whether the seizure of the Plaintiff’s claim

(a) For the purpose of fostering specific projects or providing financial assistance by the State or local governments;

As a subsidy, it shall be deemed reasonable to view that it should be received and settled only between the State or a local government and a specific assistant business operator in light of the purpose and nature of the subsidy, whether it is prohibited from using it for any purpose other than its original purpose, whether it is supervising it, and the purpose and provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, it shall not be subject to compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33586, Apr. 24, 2008).

B. The above evidence and evidence No. 2

In other words, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) DefendantCC’s claim for the subsidy of this case is related to the subsidy to be paid to Defendant BB by being entrusted with the operation and management of the Electrical Industry Foundation Fund by the State pursuant to Articles 48 and 52 of the Electric Utility Act, and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and (b) the said Electrical Industry Foundation Fund is used by the Government for power demand management projects, etc. by preparing for the continuous development of the electric industry and the creation of a foundation for the electric industry (see Articles 48 and 49 subparag. 2 of the Electric Utility Act); and (c) by raising the level of utilization of the core electric power to promote the rational and efficient use of the electric energy and the stability of the supply and demand of electricity, it appears that the subsidy to be paid by Defendant BB is to be granted to Defendant BB by virtue of the nature of the claim prohibited by compulsory execution.

C. Article 99 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, Articles 31 and 32 of the National Tax Collection Act

the local tax priority principle and the property not subject to the prohibition of seizure as provided in this section.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff’s seizure of the instant subsidy claim is valid, it is alleged earlier.

As examined, the claim of this case cannot be subject to compulsory execution due to its nature.

Under the Framework Act on Local Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act, the National Tax Collection Act does not explicitly prohibit the seizure thereof.

Even if there is no seizure of the Plaintiff’s subsidy claim, the seizure of the Plaintiff’s subsidy claim is invalid under its substantive law.

D. Therefore, without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the seizure of the Plaintiff’s instant subsidy claim becomes effective under the substantive law.

5. Consultations

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendantCC is unlawful and dismissed; and

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and BB shall be dismissed on the ground that all of the claims are groundless.

It is so decided as per Disposition.