Time of the standard for the certificate of full payment, etc. to be submitted by a person who has received a claim;

The certificate of the full payment or the certificate of the deferment of collection to be submitted by the person who received the entire bonds under the National Tax Collection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be adequate when the claims against the third party debtor are fully met.

Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 563 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2703 delivered on February 22, 1972 (Kakadd. 995, Supreme Court Decision 200Do117 delivered on June 22, 197, Decision 14(1)1876 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (Gu)

Plaintiff

Busan City

Busan District Court (70Da5056)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2703 Delivered on February 22, 1972

(1) The original judgment is modified as follows.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,541,480 won with the annual interest rate of 5% from January 28, 1971 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

(5) A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (2).

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,030,100 and the annual interest rate of KRW 5% from the following day of service to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

On June 4, 1970, the plaintiff was issued an assignment order for the above non-party 1 corporation to the non-party 2's original copy of notarial deed with an executory power of 1970-309, which was executed by the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 corporation, and the non-party 2's above non-party 1 corporation to the defendant on July 24, 1970, Busan District Court 70-1053,1054, and the attachment and assignment order for the non-party 3's original copy of 1970-161, which was executed by the non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1 corporation to the above non-party 2's original copy of 1970-197, the non-party 2's original copy of 90-197, the non-party 2's original bond and assignment order for the above non-party 1 corporation to the above non-party 3 corporation's original.

According to the plaintiff's assertion, the full amount of the contract that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff is 6,215,00 won of the above assignment order and excluding all the amounts that should be deducted as above, as in the absence of any dispute, i.e., Eul evidence 1, 2, 45-1, 2-6 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 45-1, 2-3 of the above assignment order and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the contract amount under the construction contract concluded on June 4, 1970 is 5,00 won, and the contract amount under the construction contract concluded on August 1, 197, is 1,125,00 won, but the amount settled after the completion of the construction work is 975,000 won, 1,6,0000 won, 308,000 won, 25,0000 won, 1,584,000 won, 197,8184,5,284,00000.4 won.

Since the above non-party company failed to pay national taxes of KRW 5,090,848, the defendant was notified by the head of Busan District Tax Office on January 5, 1971 that it is difficult to comply with the plaintiff's request for attachment since it was in the nature that it should be repaid first pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, according to the above evidence No. 3-1, No. 3-2 presumed to be genuine, the defendant's assignment order was delivered to the defendant who is the debtor company and the third debtor of the above non-party company on July 25, 1970 and was delivered to the defendant on August 31, 1971, since it was delivered to the defendant on August 31, 1971, the non-party company's claims against the defendant against the plaintiff against the defendant of the non-party company were delivered in lieu of repayment of the debt to the plaintiff, and it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's claim for compulsory execution against the defendant is extinguished after completion of national tax execution.

In addition, even if the defendant is liable to pay the whole amount of the above recognition to the plaintiff, Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the non-party company and the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request without submitting the certificate of completion of tax payment and the certificate of deferment of collection. Thus, it is stipulated that the plaintiff's delivery order should be made in accordance with Article 21 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act and the certificate of completion of tax payment in order to secure international preferential payment. According to Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the plaintiff pays the above amount to the non-party 1, the non-party company's non-party 2, the non-party company's non-party company's non-party 2, the non-party company's non-party 3 and the plaintiff's non-party 2, the non-party company's non-party company's non-party 4 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party company's non-party 1, the defendant 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's reply.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the full claim 3,435,055 won to the plaintiff, as the total amount of KRW 2,541,480 based on the above 70ta1053,1054 from the above 3,435,055 won to the above 70ta105 won to the plaintiff. However, the remaining amount is that there is no obligation to pay to the plaintiff due to the tax amount in arrears for the non-party company 2,846

Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (Article 12 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree) stipulates that both debtors and creditors shall submit the above certificate to the same person. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above certificate is invalid because only the person to whom the above certificate should be submitted violates Article 21(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides that the above certificate shall be submitted. Thus, according to the above Article 14(2) of the former Enforcement Decree, the above provision stipulates that the above certificate shall be submitted at the time of payment by the State, public organizations, and government management organizations, and does not limit it to any person’s certificate as alleged in the above. Thus,

Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum from January 18, 1971 to the full payment system, which is obvious in the record that the plaintiff is 2,541,480 won and the next day for the delivery of gushes. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition, and the remainder is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the original judgment and applying Articles 96, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with regard to the share of the total litigation costs.

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)