It is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the refund of deposit exists.

The defendant extinguished the effect of seizure and collection as the deposit money of this case belongs to the National Treasury.

However, as seen earlier, this was so-called a convenient national treasury and has been cancelled thereafter.

In light of the fact that the distribution procedure of this case was conducted, the above argument by the defendant is difficult to accept.

(2) Determination as to whether the Defendant’s CC has a national tax claim

First of all, ○○ Tax Office on September 24, 2008 xx members in total with respect to Defendant’s CC at the time of seizure.

As seen earlier, the existence of considerable amount of delinquent tax claims has become the same.

Next, regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, Article 27 and Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

According to the review, the state's right to collect national taxes is 5 when it can be exercised.

If it is not exercised for a year, the extinctive prescription shall become complete, and the above extinctive prescription shall be interrupted by seizure.

The extinctive prescription interrupted shall commence anew from the time of the expiration of the period until the cancellation of attachment.

As seen above, the ○○ Tax Office on September 2008 regarding the right to claim the return of the instant deposit of cC.

24. The seizure took place on August 21, 2014, and the termination of the defendant's above taxation rights.

A period of prescription has run from the day following each payment deadline until September 24, 2008, and was interrupted after August 21, 2014.

New progress, ○○ Tax Office on April 13, 2017 filed a claim for the delivery of the distribution procedure in this case.

Since the defendant's above taxation claims were interrupted, the preparation of the distribution schedule of this case

It is reasonable to see the existence at the time (No. 16, which seems to be contrary thereto).

The entry is difficult to accept in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, there is no taxation claim against the defendant cc at the time of the preparation of the distribution schedule of this case.

The plaintiff's claim under the premise that the claim was not reasonable (the plaintiff's claim for bills against cC is accepted)

Even if it is, the claim against the defendant CC shall take precedence over it).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

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

Of the dividend table prepared on April 24, 2017 by the above court with respect to the distribution procedure case of the former ○○○○○○○ District Court 2017 otherx distribution procedure case, the dividend amount against the defendant shall be corrected to distribute to the plaintiff KRW 2,059,720, the dividend amount of which against the defendant is KRW 2,059,720.

A. Nonparty bB filed an application for compulsory execution on the basis of a promissory note No.xxxx in 1997, in which the notary public against Nonparty c, on the date of non-party c and non-party c’s filing of a lawsuit of objection (○○○○○ 98Kaxxxxxxxx) on November 19, 198, and at the same time, Nonparty c filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution (○○ 98KaKaxxxxxxxx).

B. On November 27, 1998, 000, 000 won was deposited as 1,70,000 won in ○○○ Court ○○○○ Court ○○○○○ Court ○○○○○ Court ○○○○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court ○○ Court 200,000 won in a lawsuit of the above objection, and this decision became final and conclusive on May 12, 199.

D. The Plaintiff filed an application with cC for the seizure and collection order of the claim regarding the right to request the return of the deposit of this case pursuant to the No.xx No.x No.x No.x No.x No. 1998, 1998 (amount, KRW 50,00,00). On June 1, 1999, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to order the seizure and collection of the cCxxx No. 99, cx No. 1999. Meanwhile, on June 14, 199, the Plaintiff entered matters concerning the restriction on the payment of the deposit of this case in the list of the deposit of this case.

E. On September 24, 2008, the ○○○ District Court attached the right to claim the return of the instant deposit under CC according to each default of payment, such as global income tax, etc. (the due date for payment June 15, 2006, March 14, 2006, February 23, 2006) equivalent to the xx won, and notified the deposit officer of ○○ District Court on September 26, 2008, and released the said seizure on August 21, 2014.

F. On January 27, 2014, the deposit officer of the ○○○ District Court took measures to revert to the National Treasury for convenience that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the return of the deposit shall be deemed to have expired since 15 years have elapsed since the date of deposit of the instant deposit.

G. On January 18, 2017, CC applied for the cancellation of the instant deposit (○○○○ 2017 Canadax), and ○○ District Court issued a decision to revoke the instant deposit on February 20, 2017 on the ground of Article 125(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (the expiration of the maximum period of exercise of rights).

H. On March 15, 2017, the deposit officer of the ○○○ District Court revoked the measure to revert the deposited money to the National Treasury. On March 20, 2017, the distribution procedure for the deposited money was initiated upon the application. On April 13, 2017, the ○○○ District Court requested the delivery on April 14, 2017. On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution schedule that received dividends at KRW 2,059,720 (i.e., the dividend principal, KRW 1,686,656 + the dividend amount + KRW 373,064) in proportion to the 100% priority based on the seizure on September 24, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 2, 8 through 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 through 23, Eul's entries in evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the distribution procedure of this case was unlawful since it commenced on the deposit money extinguished by the measures to revert to the National Treasury. Thus, the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution of this case is unlawful.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the deposit manager of ○○○ District Court deemed that the extinctive prescription for the instant deposit has expired more than 15 years after the date of deposit, and thus withdrawal of a measure to revert to the National Treasury was made. However, prior to that, the Plaintiff and ○○ Tax Office had already taken measures, such as seizure of claims against the instant deposit, and the decision to revoke the security against the instant deposit was made upon ccc’s request. Since the said deposit manager revoked the disposition to revert to the National Treasury, so long as the distribution procedure for the instant deposit was commenced, it is difficult to regard it as illegal distribution procedure, and therefore, the Defendant’s prior defense on the premise that the distribution procedure of this case is unlawful

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

(1) On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff released the attachment of the instant deposit, and accordingly, the statute of limitations expired for obligations, such as global income tax, etc. of ccc. as of February 12, 2017. The Plaintiff asserted that the distribution schedule should be revised by the Plaintiff, a creditor to ccc, as to the instant deposit, even though cc did not have any grounds for receiving dividends as of the date of distribution ( April 24, 2017).

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends; (b) the effect of the existing seizure of the ○○ Tax Office is reinstated once the National Treasury is revoked; (c) even if it is not so, the release of attachment is a disposition that would lose the effect of the seizure in the future; and (d) the period of five years has not elapsed since the release of attachment, until the ○○ Tax Office demanded the delivery of the ○○ Tax Office after the release of attachment; (b) there exists a tax claim at the time of the preparation of the distribution schedule; and (c) the Defendant’s national tax claim is preferentially

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends

As seen earlier, a notary public prepared the No.xx No.x No. 1998, No. 1998, No. 1998, No. 2000,000, in the capacity of a notary public between the Plaintiff and CC. Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for a collection and seizure order against the right to claim the return of the deposited money of cC, and the issuance of a collection order and seizure order is issued, barring special circumstances.