(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.12.10. 선고 2016누37913 판결

On January 11, 2013, the defendant issued a seizure of the deposit claims held by the plaintiff against B Bank, Enterprise Bank, or Korea Post, and on April 25, 2014, the seizure of the deposit claims held by the plaintiff against C Bank, D Bank, or E Bank is confirmed to be null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this case is as follows, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is reasonable to find facts and make decisions of the court of first instance even if both the allegations and

○ On the 4th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added to the following details.

Meanwhile, in the case of the seizure of a claim under the National Tax Collection Act, the preparation of the attachment report is merely a document proving the fact that the tax authority attached the relevant claim within its internal jurisdiction, and it cannot be deemed an effective requirement for the seizure of a claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do855, Aug. 21, 1984). Thus, the attachment report cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the attachment report was not prepared, but the attachment of a claim is based on the intrinsic purport of securing a tax claim by prohibiting the obligor from performing his/her obligation to the delinquent taxpayer (hereinafter referred to as the "third obligor"). Thus, in light of the language and text of the attachment notice against the third obligor, the attachment of a claim is null and void unless the attachment claim is not specified or the statement prohibiting the obligor from performing his/her obligation to the delinquent taxpayer is not stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 72Ma59, Nov. 26, 197; 95Da1611, Apr. 22, 197).

In addition, this legal doctrine also applies to the procedures for attaching local governments’ penalty surcharges, charges for compelling the performance, charges for compelling the performance, etc. subject to the Act on the Collection, etc. of Local Non-Tax Revenue (see Article 19 of the Act on the Collection, etc. of Deposits in Local Taxes). The effect of the seizure of claims as part of disposition on default ought to be objectively and uniformly determined, even if the subject of the claim, such as charges for compelling the performance, and the third-party obligor are identical to each other (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da213678, Jun. 1

In full view of the overall purport of pleadings and arguments in the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment Nos. 4 and 5 of the above evidence and the first instance judgment Nos. 16 of the fifth through 4 were stated as follows: “The above evidence and this court’s fact-finding on the Bank of Korea, B Co., Ltd., and the financial settlement center,” and the entire purport of each fact-finding as to each of the above facts-findings, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, in the course of each of the instant seizure dispositions, delivered electronically to the third obligor, only includes the indication of the seized claim and the amount of seizure, but also does not include the contents prohibiting the performance of obligation to the third obligor, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was a notification of seizure to the third obligor to prohibit the performance of obligation to the Plaintiff. Thus, the defendant’s disposition of arrears as a disposition of arrears against the Plaintiff is not effective, and there is no significant and apparent defect in the process of the seizure of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da21378, supra.).

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.