Confirmation of the person entitled to deposit payments;

The notification of transfer and takeover of claims prior to the notification of seizure of claims has priority over deposit withdrawal right.

Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act: Effect of attachment of claims

1. It is confirmed that the claim for payment of the deposit money stated in the attached Form is against the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2006, the Plaintiff received the transfer of monetary claim of KRW 37,473,700 from ○○○○ Information and Communications Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 1”) from ○○○○○○○○ Information and Communications Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 2”). On June 12, 2006, the Plaintiff notified the Nonindicted Company 2 of the confirmation date by mail and sent it to the Nonindicted Company 2 on June 14, 2006.

B. Since then, the Defendant seized the above monetary claims on the ground of the delinquency in payment of national taxes against the company in the first place, and the notice reached the company in the second place on July 12, 2006, the company in the second place was suspected of as to the validity of the above monetary claims on September 27, 2006, and there is doubt as to whether the above assignment of claims and the seizure of the above monetary claims are valid or not, and the real right holder cannot be known due to the above assignment of claims, such as the indication of the attached deposit.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, monetary claims were transferred to the plaintiff and the notification of the transfer thereof was made by the certificate with a fixed date before the notification of the seizure of the above monetary claims was served on the defendant to the company other than the second lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiff can oppose the defendant by the acquisition of the above monetary claims, and the above monetary claims were legally reverted to the plaintiff. Therefore, the legitimate right to claim payment of the above monetary claims deposited by the company other than the second lawsuit belongs to the plaintiff. Thus, the person who intends to pay the deposited money is attached to the document proving that he/she has the right to claim payment of the deposited money in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Deposit Act and Article 30 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, so in order to obtain the document proving that the defendant designated as the person who received the deposited money had the right to claim payment of the deposited money against the plaintiff, there is a legal interest to seek confirmation that the right to claim

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

According to Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the defendant asserts that national taxes are priority over other claims, and thus, the above national taxes are priority over dividends in compulsory execution, etc. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit. In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because it is doubtful that the plaintiff's claim against the first company other than the company that intends to repay by the above assignment of claims is established. However, the above circumstance alone does not have any legal effect on the validity of the above assignment of claims.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.