2. SS:

3. KK corporation;

4. S engineering corporation.

5. ○○○ Insurance Corporation.

6.D;

7. E;

8. F;

9. GG;

10. H;

11. L;

12.N

13. QQQ

14.Yus;

15. PPP appraisal corporation;

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Conclusion, etc. of the instant construction contract

1) On March 24, 2005, Defendant KKK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant KK”) concluded the following construction contracts between the Plaintiff, a construction company, and the Plaintiff, a construction company, for the purpose of constructing a building with the third underground floor and the 12th floor above the ground surface (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ○○○○○○-dong, ○○-○, and one parcel of land.

Construction cost of KRW 26,263,210,900

A period from 205 to 20 months;

Article 6 (Preservation of Claims and Management of Sale Price)

(1) The revenue and expenditure of all project costs shall be processed by the joint account opened under the joint name of Defendant KK and the plaintiff (written request for payment signed and sealed by the plaintiff) and the disbursement order shall be paid in the following order, but it shall be determined after consultation with the lending bank if a separate request is made by the bank:

1. Priority: Essential project cost (loan interest, and tax and public dues);

2 Order: Construction cost, sales cost, advertising cost, design and supervision cost;

3rd: Loan principal;

2) On February 24, 2006, the Plaintiff and Defendant KK changed the above construction contract as follows. On December 13, 2007, the said construction contract changed the construction period from July 28, 2005 to December 13, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”). Unless any special circumstance exists, the Plaintiff and Defendant KK changed the construction period from July 28, 2005 to December 13, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction contract”).

Construction cost 26,813,213,900 won

The construction period from July 28, 2005 to July 28, 2007

Article 6 (Preservation of Claims and Management of Sale Price)

(1) The revenue and expenditure of all project costs shall be processed by the joint account opened under the joint name of Defendant KK and the plaintiff (written request for payment signed and sealed by the plaintiff) and the disbursement order shall be paid in the following order, but it shall be determined after consultation with the lending bank if a separate request is made by the bank:

1 Order: Interest on loans related to the new construction of the building in this case against the Plaintiff by Defendant KKK

2 Order 2: Principal repayment of taxes, public charges, and loans in installments;

3 Priority: Contract construction cost and project cost

4th order: Operating expenses and other expenses of the executor;

B. Opening of the deposit account of this case

1) The Plaintiff and Defendant KK opened a joint account (hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit account”) in ○○ Bank (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Bank”) pursuant to Article 6 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant special agreement”) of the terms of the instant construction contract, and disbursed the receipt of the sale price and the cost of business through the said account.

2) Meanwhile, on April 16, 2008, the sales price of KRW 20 million was deposited in the instant deposit account, and after the account settlement was paid by the account settlement party, no particular transaction was made. Accordingly, the remaining deposits in the said deposit account around that time are KRW 211,001,03 (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”).

C. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant KKK

1) After the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff leased the instant building construction project funds to the Defendant KK (hereinafter “instant lease”) and completed the instant building in accordance with the instant construction contract on December 13, 2007.

2) However, Defendant KK did not pay the instant construction cost and the instant loans, etc. to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said Defendant seeking the payment of the construction cost, etc. (○○○ District Court 200○○ 104○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○)

On May 9, 2014, the appellate court of the lawsuit above (○○ High Court 200○○ 518○○) rendered judgment on May 9, 2014, "Defendant KK paid 15,773,429,679 won to the Plaintiff with 7% per annum from January 23, 2008 to May 11, 2012; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 3,075,250,471 won of the loan of this case; 20% per annum from the next day to May 9, 2014 to the day of full payment; 30% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 3,87,675, 208, 2085, 205, 205, 205, 207, 208.5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

D. Concurrent seizure, etc. of the instant deposit claim

1) Disposition on default by Defendant Republic of Korea

(unit: Won)

Items of Taxation

Disposition on Default

March 9, 2008

June 9, 2009

July 10, 2012

June 13, 2013

Value-added Tax

-

346,275,790

758,148,050

823,624,040

Comprehensive Real Estate Tax

-

40,493,240

98,137,590

122,044,550

Wage and salary income tax (A)

3,885,570

91,159,050

126,250,960

136,428,910

Corporate Tax

508,426,040

1,093,597,610

1,679,183,350

1,797,345,040

Total

512,311,610

1,571,525,690

2,661,719,950

2,879,442,540

Date of the disposition for arrears

March 12, 2008

June 16, 2009

July 11, 2012

June 17, 2013

2) Disposition on default by Defendant ○○○ Insurance Corporation

The Defendant ○○○ Insurance Corporation issued a disposition on default on the instant deposit claims by taking Defendant KR as the right to preserve the insurance premium claim amounting to KRW 27,112,890 against Defendant KR, and the said disposition on default reached ○○ Bank on July 20, 2010.

3) Disposition on default in Defendant YY City

Defendant YY City issued a disposition on default on the instant deposit claim by taking the property tax claim 65,082,390 won against Defendant YK as the preserved right, and the notice on default reached the ○ Bank on March 12, 2008 (On the other hand, Defendant YY City issued a disposition on default on January 29, 2013, but revoked the disposition on default on March 3, 2015).

(iv) Other claims seizure, etc.

피고 SS시, 주식회사 SS엔지니어링, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, LLL, NNN, QQQ, PPP감정평가법인 주식회사(이하 통틀어 '자백간주 피고들'이라 하고, 위 피고들 표시에서 '주식회사'는 생략한다)는 다음과 같이 이 사건 예금채권을 압류, 가압류 또는 체납처분을 하였고, 이는 '효력발생일' 기재 일자에 ○○은행에게 각 도달하였다.

The Defendants of Confession

Amount of claims

Ruling of seizure, etc.

Effective Date

SS City

255,755,240

Disposition on default of acquisition tax

May 21, 2009

S Engineering

577,123,288

○○ District Court 2009 Other 110 ○

February 12, 2009

DD

19,160,890

○○ District Court ○○○ 2008Kadan600 ○○

September 29, 2008

EE

615,995,193

○○ District Court 2008 Other 18800

November 3, 2008

FF

1,042,865,262

○○ District Court 2008 Other 18800

November 3, 2008

GG

184,680,420

○○ District Court 2009 Other 30 ○

February 25, 2009

H H H

806,368,669

○○ District Court ○○○ Branch 2009 Other 370 ○○

September 11, 2009

LL

288,961,700

○○ District Court ○○ 2012 Other 410 ○

May 24, 2012

NN

300,000,000

○○ District Court ○○○ 2012 Other 43 ○○

May 29, 2012

QQQ

57,620,581

○○ District Court ○○○ 2012 Other 470 ○

June 12, 2012

PPP Appraisal Corporation

41,873,700

○○○ District Court 2008Kadan7050 ○○

July 18, 2008

(e) Deposit of this case by ○ Bank;

On August 11, 2014, ○○ Bank did not confirm the shares of the Plaintiff and Defendant KK’s ownership, a joint name, with respect to the instant deposit claim on August 11, 2014. As to the entire amount of the instant deposit claim on the grounds that Defendant KK’s creditors’ notification of seizure, provisional seizure of claims, seizure of claims, and collection order conflict with each other, ○○ District Court’s ○○○○○○○ Branch Branch 2014, hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ For Defendant Republic of Korea, YYsi, ○○○ Insurance Corporation

: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

○ As to the Defendants deemed to have been a confession

Judgment by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant KKK opened a joint deposit account in this case with the purpose of lending the sales price, etc. deposited in the said deposit account to the Plaintiff in charge of the construction of the building in this case and preferentially devolving the sales price, etc. deposited in the said deposit account to the Plaintiff in charge of the construction of the building in this case. However, if there is any remaining amount, Defendant KKK, the executor, can use it as business expenses, etc

B. However, Defendant KT did not pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the instant loan and the instant construction cost, etc., and as of December 13, 2007, the date of the completion of the said construction, the Plaintiff owned the instant construction cost claim (principal principal KRW 15,773,429,679), etc., in excess of KRW 211,01,03 of the instant deposit claim against Defendant KT as of December 13, 2007, which is in excess of KRW 211,001,03,033, and the instant deposit claim of this case belongs to the

C. Meanwhile, after December 13, 2007, the Defendants issued a seizure, provisional seizure, or disposition on default with respect to the instant deposit claim. This is not effective as it is against Defendant KK’s deposit claim of this case that did not have already been reverted to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendants on the fact that the Plaintiff had the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit money against the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. Claim against the Defendants as deemed confession

As to the plaintiff's assertion as to the above facts and the summary of the argument, the defendants deemed to have led to confessions in accordance with Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the instant deposit claim shall belong to the Plaintiff in full between the Plaintiff and the Defendants deemed as confession, and the Plaintiff shall submit a document attesting that the deposited public official’s deposit claim belongs to himself in order to pay the instant deposit money, and the document shall include a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties concerned, such as the person designated as the deposited person, the seizure authority, and the provisional seizure authority, and thus, the Plaintiff may have a benefit to seek confirmation as to the fact that the said Defendants have the right to claim the deposit payment against the Plaintiff.

B. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, ○○○ Insurance Corporation, or YY City

1) Summary of the defendants' assertion

A) The Plaintiff and Defendant KRK agreed to set the priority order of disbursement of the instant deposit claim in the instant special agreement clause, and, in the event that the instant disbursement item is externally borne, the Plaintiff and Defendant KRK agreed that the relevant disbursement amount shall revert to the Plaintiff and Defendant KRK, and that the said amount shall belong to the creditor in the event of internal settlement.

B) The Defendants’ tax claims against Defendant KK constitutes “the taxes and public charges set forth in the Section 2 of the instant Special Agreement, which are the expenses externally borne by Defendant KK for the implementation of the instant project.”

C) However, prior to September 18, 2008, which is the date of the occurrence of the "interest on loans" set forth in the above special contract clause as the first expenditure item, the Defendants collected delinquent taxes on the instant deposit claims by designating the said taxation claim as the preserved right. Accordingly, the Defendants’ right to claim the payment of the instant deposit money belongs not to the Plaintiff but to the Defendants, the creditors of the Defendant KK.

2) As to the attribution standard of the instant deposit claim

First of all, Defendant KKK and Si Corporation, the executor of the new building construction project of this case, in the special agreement of this case, ① the interest on loans related to the new building construction project of this case to Defendant KK, ② the interest on the loans related to the new building construction project of this case, ② the principal of the tax, public dues, and the installment repayment of loans, etc., are determined to use the savings deposit claim

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the deposit claim of this case belongs to the Plaintiff in the first order as of the time of the Defendants’ disposition on default, and the amount corresponding to the interest (damage for delay) on the loan of this case, and the remainder belongs to the Plaintiff in the division according to the ratio of the tax and public charges, which are the amount of the second order disbursement, and the principal of the loan of this case, and the amount of the loan of this case belongs to the Plaintiff and Defendant KK (Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the entire principal and interest of the

3) Whether the Defendants’ taxation claims, etc. constitute “tax and public charges” as stated in the instant special agreement

A) Considering the following circumstances revealed by the facts and adopted evidence as seen earlier, i.e., ① the revenue and expenditure of the project cost of this case are settled through the entry and withdrawal of the deposit account of this case; ② the order of disbursement appears to be specified in consideration of the importance of the expenses for the execution of the project; ② the scope of “public charges and charges” as stipulated in the special agreement of this case does not limit the scope of “public charges and charges” as stipulated in the special agreement of this case, it is reasonable to view that the payment of all the public charges and charges borne by Defendant KK with the sale price of the building of this case may be made prior to the principal of the loan of this case or the construction cost of the building of this case, which may result in difficult progress of the project of this case or excessive disadvantage to the Plaintiff.

B) In the instant case, Defendant Republic of Korea issued a disposition on default on the instant deposit claim by setting the wage and salary income tax, corporate tax, value-added tax, comprehensive real estate holding tax claim, Defendant YY City property tax claim, and Defendant ○○○○ Insurance Corporation’s health insurance claim as each preserved right.

First of all, in the case of value-added tax imposed on Defendant KK, it is reasonable to view that it falls under the tax and public charges stipulated in the special agreement clause of this case as necessary expenses directly needed for the implementation of the building construction project of this case.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone that earned income tax, comprehensive real estate tax, corporate tax, property tax, health insurance premium, etc. imposed by the Defendants on Defendant KK is difficult to recognize that the said earned income tax, etc. was imposed only on the wages of employees of Defendant KKK employed in the instant building construction project, and Defendant KK’s income or property. In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Even if the said earned income tax, etc. was partially related to the said building construction project, it is difficult to deem that the said tax is ordinarily payable by Defendant KKK regardless of the implementation of the instant construction project (income tax, property tax, health insurance premium, etc.), and that the said tax is imposed on the profits earned by the said Defendant as a result of the implementation of the instant project (corporate tax) and it is also difficult to deem

C) Therefore, the above part of the defendants' assertion is justified only for the part related to the value-added tax of the defendant Republic of Korea, and the following is examined as to the relationship between the deposit claim of this case as at the time of the disposition on default where

4) Whether the instant deposit claim belongs to the division

A) The judgment of this case was rendered and confirmed that "Defendant KK shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,075,250,471 per annum from September 18, 2008 to May 9, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The defendant Republic of Korea collected the amount of value-added tax of KRW 346,275,790 on June 9, 2009 as the preserved right to the deposit claim of this case and collected the disposition on default on June 16, 2009. The above disposition on default reached ○ Bank on June 16, 2009.

B) However, it is apparent that the damages for delay incurred from September 18, 2008 on the Plaintiff’s loan 3,075,250,471 of this case, which was set forth in the special agreement clause of this case as the first disbursement item, from September 18, 2008 to June 16, 2009, when the disposition for arrears by the Defendant’s Republic of Korea was delivered to ○○ Bank, 245,598,70 won exceeding KRW 211,01,03 of the deposit claim of this case (i.e., KRW 3,075,250,471 x 265 x 365 x 265 x 11% per annum x less than 11% per annum. Thus, the deposit claim of this case 21,001,033 won had already been fully reverted to the Plaintiff before the disposition for arrears

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant deposit claim belongs to the Plaintiff in full between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendants that the Plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of the instant deposit money in order to pay the instant deposit money.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.