As the date of confirmation of seizure and assignment order takes precedence over the date of seizure, the plaintiff takes precedence over the defendant who is the seizure authority.

Since the date of confirmation of seizure and assignment order takes precedence over the date of seizure, the plaintiff, the whole creditor based on the attachment and assignment order of this case, takes precedence over the defendant, the seizure right holder.

Article 35 (Priority of National Tax)

2014Gaz. 38629 Demurrer against distribution

AAA, Inc.

Korea

September 25, 2014

November 27, 2014

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on June 23, 2014 by the said court with respect to the claim distribution procedure case of Suwon District Court 2014 OOO, the dividends amounting to KRW 36,309,880 against the defendant shall be corrected to KRW 1,501,387, and KRW 191,507 to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 35,00,000, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) BB on June 20, 2013, the Defendant (the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: CCC National Land Management Office; hereinafter referred to as “CCC National Land Management Office”) and CCC National Land Management Office building (a subsidiary facility).

The contract for construction work (such as construction work cost) was concluded with the OO(OO(hereinafter referred to as the "construction work of this case") and the construction work was executed with the claim for the construction work of this case(hereinafter referred to as the "claim for the Construction Work of this case").

B. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the above court 2013 OOOO to issue a seizure and collection order against the claim for the instant construction cost claim of BB based on the executory exemplification of the judgment regarding BB’s purchase price of goods by the Suwon District Court 2012 OOO, and received the decision of acceptance on September 6, 2013. The above seizure and collection order was served on the Republic of Korea, the garnishee on September 11, 2013 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”).

C. On October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an order of attachment and assignment with Suwon District Court 2013 OOOO for the amount claimed on the basis of the same title as an OOO, and received a decision of acceptance on October 29, 2013. The above attachment and assignment order was served on the Republic of Korea, a garnishee, on November 1, 2013, and became final and conclusive on November 13, 2013 (hereinafter “instant attachment and assignment order”).

D. On the other hand, as of February 1, 2007, the Defendant (the head of the jurisdiction: the head of the OCO) had a taxation claim of an OOwon, including the global income tax and the value-added tax. On December 30, 2013, on the same day, attached the attachment report stating that the OOwon is seized among the instant construction payment claim of BB, and notified the CCC management office on the same day.

E. As the Plaintiff’s instant seizure and collection order, the instant seizure and assignment order, and the Defendant’s seizure and assignment order were concurrent with respect to the instant claim for construction cost, the Suwon District Court deposited the KRW 2014 KRW OOO as the Suwon District Court on January 15, 2014 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

F. On June 23, 2014, the Suwon District Court commenced the distribution procedure with respect to the instant deposit as Suwon District Court 2014 OOO, and the executing court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the amount of OOO to be actually distributed after deducting interest and enforcement expenses from the OOOO deposit to be distributed on June 23, 2014 is distributed to the Defendant, who is the seizure authority, in the first priority order of the OOwon and the Plaintiff, in the second priority order of the attachment authority (related to the seizure and collection order of this case) and the OOO (related to the seizure and assignment order of this case) (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

G. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection against the total amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on June 27, 2014, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff's seizure and assignment order of this case was delivered to the Republic of Korea, the garnishee, and the defendant attached the claim for the construction payment of this case on December 30, 2013, the following facts are as seen earlier. As such, the plaintiff, the whole creditor based on the seizure and assignment order of this case, takes precedence over the defendant, the seizure right holder. Therefore, in the distribution schedule of this case, the amount of the plaintiff's dividend amount of the plaintiff's dividends to the defendant should be revised as the amount of the OOO (=OOO - OOwon) respectively.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

As to this, the Defendant’s deposit money was created after the assignment order of this case.

Although the attachment and assignment order of this case is asserted to the effect that the assignment order of this case, which had become effective prior to that time, does not extend to the validity of the assignment order of this case, the attachment and assignment order of this case shall have effect to the whole claim for the construction price under the construction contract of this case within the limit of the claimed amount, and even if BB and CCC management office paid the construction price of this case by dividing the progress payment and paying it according to its maturity, it is difficult to view that the scope of effect of the assignment order of this case differs accordingly. Accordingly, the defendant'

4. Conclusion

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