임대료
1. The part concerning the claim for rent among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
1. As the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeking payment of rent based on a lease agreement against the Defendant, which is the judgment on the defense prior to the merits.
In this regard, the defendant attached the above rent claim of the plaintiff by the head of Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit on this part is unlawful, and the plaintiff has no standing to be a party.
Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the director of a tax office shall notify the obligor of such purport when seizing a claim," and Article 41(2) provides that "the director of a tax office shall subrogate the obligee within the limit of any national tax, additional dues and disposition for arrears when he/she has notified under paragraph (1)." Article 44(1)3 and 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23140, Sept. 16, 201) provides that the type and amount of the seized claim, and the matters to be prohibited from performing the obligation to a delinquent taxpayer and to be paid to a tax official shall be stated in the written notification of the above provision. According to these provisions, the obligee cannot exercise the seized claim because the obligor cannot pay his/her obligation to the obligee due to the attachment due to a default of national tax, and
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office’s overall purport of the entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 87 and 2931, Jan. 17, 1989, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da101435, Mar. 25, 2010; 2009Da101442, Jan. 17, 1989). However, in full view of the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office may seize the Plaintiff’s total amount of national tax in arrears against the Defendant at KRW 343,952,00,00, until the time the seizure was notified to the Defendant at that time. Thus, insofar as there is no proof that the above seizure was cancelled, the part of the instant lawsuit in question shall be deemed to have been instituted by a person disqualified