Since national tax claim takes precedence over the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment, it is reasonable to distribute dividends to the defendant.

Even if a payment by mistake has a claim for return of unjust enrichment, and it is not possible to claim the priority of the defendant who seized the same deposit claim.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017 grouped 55273 of the Demurrer

AAAA

Korea

August 29, 2017

September 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

BB District Court BB support 2017TT 29, out of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on May 18, 2017, the dividend amount of KRW 12,842,047 against the defendant shall be changed to KRW 0, and KRW 12,842,047 against the plaintiff shall be changed to KRW 12,842,047, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 14, 2015, on the grounds of the delinquency in national tax payment by DD Co., Ltd., the CE Bank claims were seized.

B. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 13,552,00 to the EE Bank account in the name of DDR Co., Ltd.

C. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) provisionally attached the deposit claim against DDR; and (b) filed a lawsuit to return unjust enrichment by FF Branch 2016da29558; and (c) obtained a judgment that “DDR shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 13,552,00 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from August 31, 2016 to November 15, 2016; and (c) paid the amount of money calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and (d) based on this, BB District Court F Branch 2016 Ta5859 as to the deposit claim against DD EE Bank.

D. On April 21, 2017, in the distribution procedure of BB District Court BB support 2017 another distribution procedure where the EE Bank deposited KRW 13,558,118 of the deposit amount of DDD due to competition on grounds of seizure, the Defendant requested the EE Bank to deliver KRW 30081,016,360 in aggregate u u300,016,360 in arrears of DD. On May 18, 2017, the lower court made a distribution schedule with the content that the EE Bank distributes KRW 686,40 (deposit cost) and KRW 12,842,047 (national tax) to BB tax officials (the Defendant) in the second priority order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the money paid by the Plaintiff to the EE Bank account of DDD Co., Ltd. was erroneously transferred by mistake by the Plaintiff, the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the money distributed to the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

Even if the plaintiff paid KRW 13,552,00 to the ECE bank account of DDD, the company acquired deposit claims equivalent to the amount of deposit against DDD, and the plaintiff has a right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of error entered into against DDD, and the plaintiff's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against DDD is a general claim with no right to claim the return of unjust enrichment. Thus, even if the plaintiff seized and collected the deposit claims against DDDD's EE bank based on the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, it is possible to participate in the distribution as a general creditor, and it is not possible to request the defendant who seized the same deposit claims to refuse compulsory execution or to claim the status of priority against the defendant who seized the same deposit claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69746, Dec. 10, 2009). Meanwhile, the defendant's national tax claims against DD corporation against the defendant in the procedure of distributing DD's dividends more than the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment.

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.