Whether the defendant's obligation to respond to collection exists

The plaintiff may exercise the right to collect the seized claim on behalf of the delinquent taxpayer within the amount of delinquent local taxes.

Article 41 (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

2016 grouped 137662 Collection

AA

BB

November 22, 2017

December 13, 2017

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff x members and the Plaintiff 15% interest per annum from October 25, 2016 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. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the facts of the plaintiff's assertion stated in the basic facts of the attached Form No. 1 can be recognized.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

In case where a claim is seized by the head of a tax office in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the obligor of the seized claim cannot repay the obligation to the obligee. Meanwhile, if the head of a tax office subrogated the obligee by notifying the obligor of the attachment pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the obligee of the seized claim shall be deemed to have acquired the right to collect the claim. Thus, if the obligor of the attached claim becomes due, the obligor of the attached claim shall be liable to perform it to the head of the tax office, which is the subrogated obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff xx members, the delinquent amount, among the sales claims of BB, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 25, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, as the plaintiff seeks.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

The defendant asserts that the stone price liability against BB shall be xx source or xx source directly paid to the subordinate enterprise pursuant to the direct payment agreement, which shall be deducted, and that the CCC site damage xx source and xx source incurred by the supply of defective materials by BB due date for payment or by offsetting the damage damage xx in DD site by offsetting the damage xx source.

The entries of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to acknowledge the existence of subsidies or damages by the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of subsidies or damages. The Defendant’s defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.