(A)If the pledgee loses ownership of the pledged article, there is a right of indemnity against the debtor.

Article 341 of the Civil Act provides that if a pledger for securing another person's obligation according to the right to indemnity of the surety has discharged his obligation or has lost his ownership as a result of the exercise of the pledge right, the surety has a right to indemnity against the obligor pursuant to the provisions on

§ 341. Right of indemnity of surety

2014 Gohap9488 Claims

Korea

leapA and 1

The second instance decision

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

January 29, 2015

1. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 224,932,690 won, Defendant leB shall pay 214,915,230 won, and 5% per annum from January 29, 2013 to December 15, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to December 15, 2014.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Applicable provisions;

Articles 208(3)1 and 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Grounds of Claim

1. The existence of the preserved claim (the taxation claim against the Foreign DamageA);

1) 소외 손AA는 경기도 000시 QQQ면 QQQ리 169-3 답 외 3필지의토지(이하 '이 사건의 양도부동산'이라 합니다)를 2011. 10. 7. 양도하였으며 2011. 12. 30. 양도소득세 신고를 하였습니다.

2) On March 31, 2012, the Plaintiff’s head of the tax office confirmed the non-payment of the capital gains tax by the DamageA, and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 554,333,710 as the payment deadline, and added KRW 213,125,980 as the payment deadline on September 30, 2012 due to the underreporting of the transfer value and the reduction or exemption for the eight-year grace period (see, e.g., items A through 2).

3) In relation to the taxation claims of the transferred real estate of this case, the director of the tax office received the delinquent taxes of KRW 286,776,680 through the public sale and other delinquent dispositions. However, the grandchildren did not pay two transfer income taxes of KRW 701,358,180 (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation claims”) including additional charges of KRW 220,675,170 until the filing of the instant lawsuit until the filing of the lawsuit.

2. Factual relations concerning the establishment and repayment of the Defendants’ right to collateral security

1. On October 29, 2009, Defendant LapA entered into a loan agreement of KRW 000,000,000 with (State),CC bank of KRW 000,000,000, and Defendant LapA entered into a loan agreement with Defendant LapA, the real estate owned by Defendant LapA at KRW 403, 65, and 3,000, Gyeonggi-do, for the real estate owned by Nonparty LapA, No. 403, 403, 65, and 405, non-party LA, 65, and 3,000,000, with the joint collateral set up a collateral of KRW 390,00,00,00 for the maximum debt amount (see evidence A, e.g., evidence 3,5).

2. On October 29, 2009, Defendant YB entered into a loan agreement with 000 points ofCC bank 00,000,000 won and 290,000 won, and Defendant YB entered into a loan agreement with Defendant YB on the real estate owned by Defendant DB, Gyeonggi-do 00, DB No. 404 of 65 and 3 lots of non-party 406 of DDD 65 and 3 lots of non-party 406 of Do, Gyeonggi-do, with the real estate owned by Non-party YB as joint collateral, and implemented a loan with the maximum debt amount of 377,00,000,000 won (refer to the evidence No. 4,6).

3. The real estate (DDD 65 et al., 65 et al., 405 et al., 405 et al., the real estate seized by the DamageA due to the delinquency in payment by the State, was sold to each creditor on October 29, 201, and the sales proceeds became distributed to each creditor on January 29, 2013, and the amount of KRW 224,932,690 was distributed to the State (State)CC bank, a mortgagee, and thus, the Defendant YoonA’s debt was repaid in lieu of the obligation (see evidence 5 and 7)

4. In addition, LA’s Do-do DDD 65 and 406 of the 200-si 00-si 65 and 3 lots of land, the sales price was distributed to each creditor 44 on October 29, 2013, and the 214,915,230 won was distributed to each creditor as a collateral-mortgage (State)CC bank, which was a collateral-mortgage, and as a result, Defendant leB’s debt was repaid in lieu of Defendant leB’s debt (see, e.g., evidence 6,7).

3. Occurrence of the right of indemnity;

In accordance with Article 341 of the Civil Code, if a pledger for securing another person's obligation according to the right to indemnity of the surety has repaid his obligation or has lost ownership of the pledged article due to the execution of the pledge, he shall specify that the right to indemnity against the debtor is stipulated in the provisions on the surety

In addition to the case, the non-party DamageA, as a surety, performed the guaranteed obligation on behalf of the defendants who are the principal obligor due to the public sale of the real estate owned by his property as a surety, so the DamageA, which fulfilled the guaranteed obligation, can be said to have the right

4. Insolvent and non-exercise of rights of the grandchildren; and

The DamageA holds the right to indemnity in order to avoid the disposition on default of the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, at the time of filing the lawsuit, but does not exercise the right to indemnity (see the evidence A No. 8).

5. Conclusion

The DamageA does not exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendants, and the Plaintiff is already unable to execute the disposition on default of other property against the DamageA, which is a state of non-property. Accordingly, the State, the creditor of the DamageA, as a creditor of the DamageA, has the national tax claim against the same person as the preserved claim under Article 404 of the Civil Code, which led to the claim of this lawsuit made by the non-party DamageA on the ground of the obligee's subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Code.