On the notice of collection by the execution creditor, the third debtor cannot assert the non-existence or extinction of the execution claim. Thus, the deposit by the third debtor is null and void.

The non-existence or non-existence of an execution bond can not be denied the repayment of the execution bond by asserting it as a defense in the lawsuit of collection. Therefore, even if the application for deposit was accepted, the deposit on this ground does not meet the requirements of deposit for repayment under the substantive law, and thus becomes null and void and it does not take effect.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

2014 Gohap536962 Collection Money

Korea

IsaA

September 18, 2014

October 2, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from July 5, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers) and arguments, BB’s personal database (hereinafter “B”) which is a foreign corporation shall entrust the defendant with the custody of OOO directors without fixing a period of time on July 20, 201. The director of the distribution tax office may seize BB’s national tax claims against BB under the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act and seek payment of the claims in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act. According to the above recognition, it is clear that the amount of national tax claims to be seized is within the scope of the amount of national tax claims to be collected, and the defendant, who is the debtor of the seized claims, shall not be deemed the debtor to be the debtor, who is the debtor of the seized claims, and the head of the tax office shall not be deemed to be the debtor, who is the debtor of the seized claims, and the head of the tax office shall not be deemed to be the debtor of the attached claims to be the debtor under Article 184(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from July 5, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, to the day of claiming the payment of the amount of seized claims to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

B B B filed a petition for an adjudication against the Plaintiff’s tax imposition disposition before receiving the notification of the seizure of the claim from the Plaintiff, and the administrative litigation is ongoing. Accordingly, the Defendant constitutes a case where the obligee cannot be identified without fault under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code, and accordingly, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless since it deposited the above OOO of the storage deposit.

On the other hand, the absence or extinguishment of an execution claim is the reason for the execution obligor to assert in the lawsuit of objection against the claim, and the defendant, the third obligor in the lawsuit of collection, cannot refuse the performance of the execution obligation by asserting it as a defense (see Supreme Court Decision 94DaOOOOOO, Nov. 11, 1994). The ground for the defendant's assertion alone does not constitute a case where the obligee cannot be known without fault under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act. Even if the application for deposit was accepted, the deposit that failed to meet the requirements for repayment under the substantive law does not take effect, and thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.