When seizure of claims is conducted, the seizure shall not be effective unless the kinds of claims to be seized are specified.

It is not specified as the type of claims seized in the indication of the claims to be seized, and it is not effective since the seizure of this case does not specify the claims to be seized. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion premised on the validity of the seizure of this case is without merit without examining the remaining points of view.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 Gohap 110759 Collections

1. Korea;

1. AA

September 2, 2016

October 7, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 535,092,890 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. BB (hereinafter “BB”) was delinquent in national taxes of KRW 535,092,890 as of October 30, 2015.

B. Accordingly, on October 29, 2012, on the part of the Plaintiff, the CCB attached the claims against the Defendant BB through the notice of the attachment of claims (hereinafter “instant notice of attachment”) (hereinafter “instant attachment”).

C. According to the notice of the instant attachment, the indication of the claims to be seized was written “BB” as “amount of national taxes in arrears (including increased and decreased and disposition fees for arrears added later)” among the claims against the Defendant (including claims to be incurred later).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff has a national tax claim of KRW 535,092,890 against BB, and BB has a claim of KRW 881,780,00 and KRW 105,885,833, total amount of sales claim of KRW 105,833, and KRW 987,665,833, and the Plaintiff seized the claim against BB against the Defendant under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 535,092,890 and delay damages.

2) Article 44(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23140, Sep. 16, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides that notification of seizure of claims shall be made in writing stating the type and amount of claims seized, but the above provision was deleted upon the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act on September 16, 201. In the case of seizure of claims under the National Tax Collection Act, the seizure of claims cannot be deemed null and void, since it cannot be said that the seizure of claims is valid.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) As the notification of the instant attachment does not state the type of claims subject to attachment, the instant attachment is invalid, given that the claims subject to attachment were not specified.

2) It is difficult to interpret Article 44 of the former Enforcement Decree to mean that the type of claims subject to seizure may not be specified in the National Tax Collection Act with the deletion of Article 44 of the former Enforcement Decree.

3. Determination

A. Under the National Tax Collection Act, a claim attachment under a disposition on default is to ensure a tax claim by prohibiting a debtor from performing his/her obligation against a delinquent taxpayer with respect to a claim attached to the debtor. Thus, if a claim to be attached is not specified by a notice of attachment of claim, it constitutes a serious and obvious case where the defect is deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da41611, Apr. 22, 1997; 98Da28008, Jun. 11, 199).

Meanwhile, Article 44(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that notice of seizure shall be given in writing stating the type and amount of claims to be seized, but the above provision was deleted upon the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act on September 16, 2011. However, in consideration of the concept of seizure and general characteristics of claims to be seized even if it does not expressly provide for the degree of specification of claims to be seized in the National Tax Collection Act, the specific type of claims to be seized should be specified unless otherwise expressly provided for in the same Act. ② Even if examining the legislative intent of deletion of Article 44 of the former Enforcement Decree, it is questionable that the amendment of the National Tax Collection Act does not provide for the deletion of the specific type of claims to be seized under Article 44 of the former Enforcement Decree on September 16, 201 without any reason to delete the same, it is difficult to interpret that the above amendment does not require more specific type of claims to be seized than 4 of the former Enforcement Decree on the grounds that it does not require more specific type of seizure under Article 444 of the former Enforcement Decree.

B. In this case, the Plaintiff’s attachment of claims against the Defendant by BB on October 29, 2012, stating that “BBB’s indication of claims subject to attachment in the notice of the attachment of claims is an amount until it reaches the amount of national taxes in arrears (including increased additional charges and disposition fees for arrears added later) among the claims against the Defendant (including claims to be incurred later) by BBB.

According to the above facts, it is not specified as to which claim is seized because the indication of the above seized claim does not include all the kinds of the seized claim, and it is not specified as to which claim is seized, and the seizure of this case is not effective because it does not specify the seized claim.

C. If so, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the validity of the seizure of this case, is without merit, in view of the remaining points.

4. Conclusion

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