2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and the partyB is all dismissed.

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

A. On September 22, 1998, E filed a lawsuit against KimF as Busan District Court 98 Ghana157876, and sentenced on September 22, 1998, EF paid 17,608.256 won to E, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 18 of the same year, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the claim under the above judgment from E as a successor to E on April 27, 2001, and was granted an execution clause succession to the above judgment.

B. The KimF filed a lawsuit against the defendant Park Jong-chul as Busan District Court 96Kadan6194, which had been filed for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, and on January 23, 1998, the above court 98 in the proceedings, " defendant Park Young-gu, Busan, Busan, 00-0 m2,314 m2,00 m2,314 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,099 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m3,000 m3,000 m2,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000.

C. On December 1, 200, Defendant LA entered into a sales contract with HaGG to sell 1112-2, 3, 4, 6, and 11 forest land in Busan Dong-gu to 000 won. Of the above real estate, Defendant LA entered into a sales contract with HaG to sell 1112-2, and 3 forest land among the above real estate under the name of HaG as designated by HaG, and completed each registration of ownership transfer under the name of HaH, and received the remainder of HaG from HaG with the remainder of 00 won excluding the remainder of the above payment.

D. On September 19, 2002, Defendant LA requested LAA to establish a right to collateral security to secure the above remainder of claims by transferring the above remainder of claims to LAC and LAD, his/her his/her wife, and notifying HG of the fact of the transfer, and HG demanded LA to establish a joint collateral security right to secure the above remainder of claims, among the real estate purchased from Defendant LAA, with regard to forests and fields of 1112-3, 4, and 11 among the real estate purchased from Defendant LA, LA created a joint collateral security right to be LACD.

E. On April 11, 2003, the Plaintiff requested a seizure and collection order, which is based on the original copy of the judgment of Busan District Court 98 Ghana 157876 and is based on the debtor Kim F, defendant ParkF, defendant Park Jong-chul, claim amount of KRW 000 (principal KRW 000 + interest KRW 000), and issued a seizure and collection order, which is equivalent to the amount of the above claim from the above court until the above claim amount is seized, and the Plaintiff as the creditor is entitled to collect the claim. The above order was served on defendant Park Jong-A on April 15, 2003. On May 9, 2003, the Plaintiff succeeded to the execution clause against the above court, which is the executive title related to the claim of this case.

F. On May 12, 2004, KimF issued a written notice of the assignment of the instant claim for delay damages to Defendant HoB, from April 30, 2004 (=00 won for each month X 66 months) minus KRW 000,000, which was paid by Defendant LAA from April 30, 2004 (=00 won - 000 won for each month) and KRW 000 for each month thereafter). On May 31, 200, the above transfer was notified to Defendant LA by content-proof mail, but the above Defendant was not served with the delivery of the instant claim, and thereafter, on August 24, 2004, Defendant PB received the assignment of the instant claim and then Defendant PB also received the assignment of the execution clause as to the instant claim for delay damages from Busan District Court Decision 98 S.191.

G. On August 6, 2004, 1112-3, 4, 6, and 11 of the real estate purchased by HGG from Defendant LA, the Busan District Court held that on August 2004, 112-3, 4, and 111 of the real estate auction procedure for real estate deposit, the amount of KRW 00 was paid to GGD, which was the mortgagee of the above 112-3, 4, and 11 of the date of distribution, but on August 6, 2004, the amount of KRW 00 was paid to HGD, who was the mortgagee of the above 112-3, 4, and 111 of the real estate auction procedure for the above 1112-4, 204, 224, and 11 of the real estate purchased by Defendant LG from Defendant LA. The above dividends claim was deposited with the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's 2004, 2004.

H. The Plaintiff: Busan District Court Decision 2004Gahap2624 rendered a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act against ParkBB, Busan District Court Decision 2004Gahap2624, which held against the Defendant ParkB, as the transfer of the claim against the Defendant ParkB, and ParkD, was fraudulent act; the said court took part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant ParkB on November 10, 2005, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant ParkB with 00 won and calculated the Plaintiff’s claim amount of the preserved claim amount as KRW 00,000, and the Plaintiff’s claim amount of the preserved claim amount as KRW 00,00,000, the amount of the preserved claim amount as KRW 200,000,000,000,000,0000,0000 won, and notified the Defendant ParkBA to the effect that the transfer of claim amount as to the instant deposited money was revoked, and the appellate court rendered a final decision 200150,080,05.

I. The plaintiff, based on the Busan District Court protocol No. 98S. 991, issued a collection order for the claim amounting to KRW 00,000 on May 8, 2006, which was issued by the debtor Park Jong-A, the garnishee, the defendant Republic of Korea, and the claim amounting to KRW 00,000, and received a seizure and collection order for the claim amount from the above court. The defendant Park Jong-A, based on the cancellation ruling of fraudulent act, seized the claim amount of the deposit amount of this case transferred from ParkCC and Park Jong-D and issued a collection order for the claim amount of KRW 30,00,00,00 from the above court No. 200,378, Nov. 25, 2005. The defendant Park Jong-B received a collection order for the claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000,000 from the above court No. 370,000,000,000.

(j) Meanwhile, Defendant Park Jong-A reported and did not pay capital gains tax corresponding to 200 (hereinafter referred to as “capital gains tax claim of this case”), which was determined on April 30, 2001 as the payment deadline and notified Defendant Park Jong-A of the imposition of KRW 000 capital gains tax of KRW 2.00. Nevertheless, Defendant Park Jong-A did not pay capital gains tax of KRW 000 on February 27, 2007, and Defendant Republic of Korea (competent Office: Busan District Office) seized KRW 00 (=00 capital gains tax amount of KRW 000 + additional dues up to the date of seizure) of Defendant Park Jong-A’s deposited capital payment claim of this case on the ground of delinquency in national tax payment on February 27, 2007.

(j) The Busan District Court established the distribution procedure for the instant deposited money (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution procedure”) under 201TY516, and raised an objection against the entire dividend amount of the Defendant, Republic of Korea, and due to the following: (a) out of the 118,376,876, the amount to be actually distributed after adding interest to the instant deposited money and deducting the execution cost; (b) KRW 000, the total amount of the amount requested to be delivered to the Busan District Court in the first order; and (c) KRW 00,00 and KRW 00,00 to the Plaintiff in proportion to the amount of each claim as the secondary collection right holder, based on the ratio of each claim amount; (d) the Plaintiff was present on the date of distribution of the instant deposited money; and (e) the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Plaintiff’s qualification as the debtor of the Defendant Park Jong-A and the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant Republic of Korea

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, Eul 3, Eul 3, Eul 1-, Eul 1-2, Eul 2-1-2, Eul 1, 2-3, Eul 1, 2-3, 4, 5, 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

(3) Since the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Park Jong-chul was not transferred to the Defendant Park Jong-chul, the Busan District Court 2006TB as the garnishee, 2055, and the collection order, the above court decided that it shall not pay the claim for the return of the deposit money to the Defendant Park Jong-chul, and that it shall not pay it to the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of the deposit money to the Defendant Park Jong-chul, and that the judgment cancellation of the fraudulent Act was final and conclusive, notwithstanding the above decision, the above claim against the Defendant Park Jong-Da was not assigned to the Defendant Park Jong-chul, and the above claim against the aforesaid 0-year 10-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 0-year 0-year 0-20-year 70-year 0-year 20-year 0-year 70-year 0-year 20-year 20-year 0-year 0-year 20-year 20-year 7.

The defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the seizure of the real estate owned by the defendant Park Jong-A before the completion of the statute of limitations on the transfer income tax claim of this case. The defendant Jung-B asserts that the amount of the plaintiff's credit, which serves as the basis for the dividend in the dividend procedure of this case, shall be KRW 000,000, but its amount of credit shall not be KRW 00,000,000,000 according to the claim seizure and collection order.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the debtor's assertion that the distribution procedure is ParkCC and ParkD

According to Gap evidence 1-1, it is acknowledged that the seized claim in Busan District Court 2006 other 96555 and the order for the seizure and collection of the claim is a claim against ParkCC and Park DoD before a partial final judgment on the revocation of the fraudulent act was made, and that the above seized claim is a claim against the defendant Park Park CC and Park Dol-D's claim against the defendant's deposited payment claim of KRW 000,000, which is against the defendant's Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the above seized claim is a claim against the defendant Park Park CC, Park Dol-D's claim against the defendant Park Dol-D (claim for Return), which is established by the judgment on the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case. Since the creditor's revocation of the fraudulent act is limited to the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, the debtor and the subsequent purchaser are still subject to the revocation of the obligation to restore the claim to the original state due to the defendant Park 201, which is a beneficiary or subsequent purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 20190Da290169,

Therefore, the above Busan District Court's 2006TTTTT 9655 and the collection order is invalid as against non-existent claims. The beneficiary's right to deposit out payment of this case is deemed to have been restored to the responsible property of Defendant ParkbB when the judgment revoking the fraudulent act of this case became final and conclusive, and all creditors of Defendant ParkbA, including the cancelled creditor, can enforce compulsory execution against the claim to deposit out payment of this case restored to the above Defendant's responsible property. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff's assertion that the debtor of the distribution procedure of this case is ParkCC and ParkDD is without merit.

B. Determination as to the legitimacy of the action against the defendant Park Jong-A

"The plaintiff asserts that the debtor of the distribution procedure of this case is ParkCC and ParkD, and seeks a judgment against the defendant Park Jong-A on the change of the debtor's "YA" to "YA and ParkD" in the entry of the distribution schedule of this case. "The debtor of the distribution procedure of this case is not ParkCC and ParkD", as seen above, and the distribution procedure of this case cannot be claimed for the change of the entry of the distribution schedule of this case without the debtor's entry in the distribution schedule of this case. Thus, the lawsuit against the defendant Park Jong-A is unlawful.

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

The transfer income tax claim of this case is a national tax and its extinctive prescription period is five years pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The payment period of the transfer income tax of this case was April 30, 2001 and the five years passed from the seizure of the defendant Republic of Korea was completed on February 27, 2007. However, according to the statement of evidence No. B and 4-1, the defendant Republic of Korea could recognize the fact that the transfer income tax of this case was suspended on June 7, 2002 on June 3, 2002 on the road No. 2331-4, Busan, Busan, Busan, Dong-dong 331-4, which was owned by the defendant Park Jong-gu, as the cause of seizure. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part of this case is without merit.

D. Determination as to the claim against Defendant AB

In addition, on April 11, 2003, the plaintiff requested a seizure and collection order, based on the original copy of the judgment of Busan District Court 98Gabu157876, which was issued by the above court 2003TTT2184, against the debtor KimF, the garnishee debtor Park Jong-A, and the claim amount of 000, and issued a seizure and collection order, which was issued by the above court to seize the claim for the delay damages of this case equivalent to the above claim amount until the above claim amount was paid, and the plaintiff received the seizure and collection order, which was issued by the above court 2003Ha160, which was based on the above collection order, that the plaintiff succeeded to the execution clause against the above court 98Gu1991, which was the executive title as to the claim for delay damages of this case, as seen earlier.

Ultimately, the amount that the Plaintiff could collect as an execution clause to succeed to the above protocol shall be limited to the above KRW 000,00 granted by the collection right, out of the damages for delay of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, premised on the fact that all Defendant Park F’s rights to the Defendant ParkF under the above protocol have been transferred to the Plaintiff.

However, since the amount of the plaintiff's dividend participation claim by the defendant JungB had an impact on the amount of the plaintiff's dividend participation claim by the defendant JungB, the court below examined the amount of the defendant JungB's dividend participation claim by Busan District Court 2003TTT2184. After the plaintiff received the claim amount of KimF from the debtor ParkB to the third debtor by the Busan District Court 2003TT2184, the defendant JungB acquired the amount of 00 won out of the claim of this case from KimF and 00 won monthly from May 1, 2004 to 00 won from the above court 91, the defendant JungB received 00 won from the above court - the claim amount of 00 won under the above court 2006TT15038 (the above court 90 won) - the claim amount of 00 won and the claim amount of 00 won -B from the above court - the debtor - the above court - the claim of 0000 won out of 130.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, in the instant dividend procedure, Defendant Republic of Korea, as the top priority dividend right holder pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, shall receive KRW 000, the total amount of the instant capital gains tax claim, and the Plaintiff shall receive KRW 000,000 (=00 of the Plaintiff’s dividend participation amount + KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s dividend participation claim + KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s dividend participation claim amount + KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s dividend participation claim amount at the first place, and KRW 00,000 (=the above KRW 000 】 the dividend participation claim amount at Defendant Party BB / the Plaintiff’s dividend participation claim amount + KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s dividend participation claim amount + KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s dividend participation claim amount at the first place, and KRW 000 of the small number). Therefore, the Plaintiff shall not receive additional dividends.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Park Jong-B is dismissed as illegal, and the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and Jung-B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.