The effect of seizure of a joint account where the joint account is reverted to one of the parties by the judgment after the joint account is held.

Even if the common name account belongs to the other party, and the seizure was made before the attribution becomes final and conclusive, it is deemed that there is no shares of the delinquent taxpayer at the time the withdrawal is possible, so the seizure of the defendant is invalid.

Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act: Effect of attachment of claims

2015 Ghana 5377694 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

KK, Inc.

Korea

April 6, 2016

May 4, 2016

1. Deposit with the Seoul Central District Court No. 26090 in gold No. 2015 on November 25, 2015

Han 123,480,878 won is confirmed to be the plaintiff.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Limits on taking over the equity shares of the golf course operation company;

(1) AA Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AA”) establishes a BBB Limited Corporation from around 2001 to operate a golf course in China. CCC (a merger with the Plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) is a transferee of BB’s equity from the non-party company.

(2) On April 23, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition by transfer of BB’s shares from the non-party company. On August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a supplementary agreement, and the content of the extinguishment membership is as follows.

Article 2 (Contribution Transfer Price)

1. The transfer proceeds of equity shares shall be KRW 4.65 million in won (hereinafter referred to as "transfer proceeds"), and where the total liabilities of BB exceed 7,478.60,000 in won, such excess amount shall be reduced from the transfer proceeds and paid, and where the total liabilities of BB fall short of 7,478.60,00 in the People's Union, such deficiency shall be increased and paid to the above transfer proceeds;

4. In addition to the above transfer proceeds, with three Gao, Gao, Gao, Gao, and Gao and 5,800,000 UN on the 90th day from the chloroth day of the People's Union of the obligation pending in the lawsuit, the above Gao account opened by the agreement of the plaintiff and the defendant. (1) If BB becomes a winning decision, the defendant withdraws the amount deposited in the account and belongs to it. In this case, the total amount of the debt, which is the deduction standard under paragraph (1) above, is changed to 6,898.60,000 UN.

(2) If BB becomes final and conclusive against it, it shall be deemed that the money deposited in the said account is withdrawn to the Plaintiff and reverted to it. In this case, the sum total of the liabilities, which is the basis of the deduction under Paragraph (1) above, is not changed.

However, if BB becomes final and conclusive before the 90th day from the date of the lawsuit, the amount of winning shall be paid to the defendant on the 90th day above.

Article 3 (Timing and Method of Payment of Transfer Price)

2. The transferee shall pay the transfer price by means of remitting it to the bank account designated by the transferor. In calculating the exchange rate between the Korean won currency and China for the implementation of the present contract, it shall be calculated by fixing it to 130 won per 1 United Nations.

Article 7 (Clatera)

1. On the third day from the date of completion of ratification and registration of modification, the Plaintiff shall deposit the transfer price into the account or Esck pursuant to Article 3(1)(2) on the condition that the documents referred to in paragraph (2) are delivered at the place of business of BB and the conditions prior to Article 8 are met.

(3) Around that time, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company entered into an account management agreement for the payment of the price for transfer under the instant equity transfer agreement (hereinafter “instant Ecro contract”). The key content of the instant Ecro contract is as follows.

Article 2 (Deposit of Deposits)

2. In the calculation of the exchange rate between the Korean won and the United Nations on China for the implementation of this Agreement, the rate shall be fixed to 130 won per 1 Vienna.

Article 4 (Payment of Deposit)

1. Where the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly issue a written instruction to jointly pay the deposits to SP transfer, the transfer to SV must immediately pay the deposits to the Defendant or the person designated by the Defendant upon receipt of such written instruction.

3. If there is a dispute between the parties and thus both parties are unable to draw up and deliver a joint written instruction to Escro transfer, the final and conclusive judgment of the court may replace the joint written instruction.

B. Supplementary agreement and discipline between the plaintiff and the non-party company

(1) Under the instant contract for the transfer of equity shares, a survey was conducted on BB, and the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company changed the transfer price to KRW 4.175 million on August 24, 2007, and made a supplementary agreement on the method of disposing of the liabilities of BB additionally discovered (hereinafter “instant supplementary agreement”).

(2) The main contents of the instant supplementary agreement are as follows.

2. Method of disposal and confirmation of additional liabilities;

(a) Class 1 of the method of disposal of a debt is deemed to have been prepared only for a debt item listed in Appendix 1 of the transfer contract, and where the debt of a item other than that listed in Appendix 1 of this Agreement is additionally discovered or the debt of a item listed in Appendix 1 is increased, the separate method of disposal of the debt shall be deducted from the Esc account as determined in the transfer contract;

(1) Although the amount of debt is calculated based on 670 unit units related to extinguished membership rights (sale in the leisure age), the Plaintiff does not increase the amount of debt up to 30 unit units (45 million won) and does not deduct or reduce the increased amount of debt from the purchase price, even in cases where the number of old unit units of extinguished membership increases in consideration of the circumstances of the parties.

6. Liabilities of two persons, including stuffs and others;

Where the defendant presents a final and conclusive judgment of the Chinese court that he/she is not liable for the above obligation with respect to Gao, Gao, Gao, and Gao 5,800,000,000 people's debts related to Gao 3, the plaintiff shall pay the amount to the defendant: Provided, That when the above final and conclusive judgment was made before the ratification is amended, the amount shall be paid by the time when the ratification is modified.

7. Confirmation of extinguished membership rights;

BB The status of its members are as shown in Appendix 2 (Membership List), and in the future, when a member other than the members listed in Appendix 2 is discovered, the plaintiff shall not be recognized as its members, and the defendant shall be responsible for its expenses and effort, and the defendant shall settle the debt by withdrawing the amount equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's debt (the price of the member based on the issue date) from the amount deposited in the SC account if the defendant fails to settle it: Provided, That the defendant shall submit an additional list of members within 90 days after the date of conclusion of this Agreement within 90 days from the date of conclusion of this Agreement, with the limit of 85 persons other than Appendix 2-615 among the extinguished membership members (e.g., the sale in the leisure time), the total amount of the extinguished membership shall be determined as the determined amount of the extinguished membership verification certificate under Appendix 1, and the number of members shall be determined as 615.

17. The relationship with the transfer contract of the instant equity shares

This Agreement shall be annexed to the transfer contract of this case. However, if the contents of this Agreement conflict with the transfer contract of this case, this Agreement shall prevail over the transfer contract of this case.

(3) The instant contract for the transfer of equity shares was drafted on November 26, 2007.

(c) Occurrence of disputes related to extinguished membership rights and details of judgment;

(1) The non-party company received a register of extinguished membership from the leisure age and submitted it to the plaintiff. The old unit unit was 781 unit (the price per old unit was 1.5 million won) and the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the non-party company in relation to the additional 81 unit membership rights. The Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap5485, (Counterclaim) 2014Gahap50239, Seoul High Court 2014Na2019750, (Counterclaim) 2014Na2014Na2017677.

(2) According to the supplementary agreement, the Plaintiff asserted that the non-party company is responsible for and resolve the case where the extinguished membership exceeds 700 - - 700 ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- --- -------- ---- ---- ------ --- ------- ---- --- --- --- ---

(3) The court held that the non-party company has a duty to resolve the 81 unit unit in excess of 700 unit units, and that the non-party company has a duty to pay 121,49,950 won, which is the membership price at the time of issuance of the unit to the plaintiff, unless the resolution is reached.

(4) However, it was accepted by the non-party company’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of the transfer price set off the above claim against the non-party company, and held that the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party company was obligated to express its intent to pay 90,612,146 won and the amount equivalent to 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 20, 2008 to the date when the judgment became final and conclusive to Sk for payment.

(5) As to this, the non-party company filed an appeal, and the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal, and the appellate court maintained the same conclusion as the first instance court, but the appellate court maintained the same conclusion. Ultimately, the amount reverted to the plaintiff out of the above Esck deposit is 90,612,146 won and the amount equivalent to 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 20, 208 to June 29, 2015 when the above judgment became final and conclusive [127,891,595 won = 90,612,146 won * 2504 (from August 20, 208 to June 29, 2015)/36%].

D. The defendant's seizure and deposit

(1) On July 26, 2015, after the above judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff presented the final and conclusive judgment to the OO bank, Inc., a third debtor of the deposit, and claimed the payment of the deposit.

(2) On July 5, 2012 and June 21, 2013, prior to the conclusion of the judgment above, the OF refused payment on the ground that the notification of seizure by the Defendant (UGT) was given to the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 25, 2015, and deposited the amount to KRW 123,480,878, the deposit balance.

(3) The defendant did not pay the corporate tax and the labor income tax and did not make the above seizure.

one is the same.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

The above deposit in the account was scheduled to be reverted to the Plaintiff according to the agreement, and the non-party company did not hold the right to the above deposit at the beginning, and thus there is no validity of the seizure of the defendant to the above deposit. Therefore, the right to claim payment of the above deposit is effective against the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that the right to claim payment of the deposit is disputed.

(2) Defendant

(A) In light of the above decision between the plaintiff and the non-party company, it is confirmed that the plaintiff has a share in "90,612,146 won and 6% interest per annum in the balance of the deposit account of this case", and the plaintiff does not have the right to withdraw all shares in the deposit account of this case.

Therefore, among the balance of the deposit account of this case, the remaining amount of the Plaintiff’s share (in accordance with 90,612,146 won and 6% per annum) shall be deemed as the share of the non-party company.

(B) However, on July 4, 2012, the Seoul Daegu District Tax Office, under the Defendant’s control, seized the instant deposit account on July 4, 2012. At the time of seizure, the Plaintiff’s share in the instant deposit account is confirmed to be KRW 111,703,674 (the sum of KRW 90,612,146 and KRW 21,091,528).

(C) Therefore, the defendant's above seizure is valid for the non-party company's shares (the remaining balance of KRW 111,703,674 from the Account of this case) out of the balance of the Account of this case, and it is evident that the non-party company's claim for deposit payment of KRW 11,77,204 (123,480,878 Won 111,703,674 Won) out of the 123,480,878 Won deposited by the O Bank with No. 26090 of the Seoul Central District Court in 2015 is the defendant.

B. Legal principles

In a case where a joint account is opened in a bank and the rights of the bank are to be exercised together, if a joint account is opened in the joint account of the bank, it shall be deemed that there is a quasi-joint ownership relationship of claims if the joint account holder deposits the money shared by each joint account holder for a specific purpose other than the business in the joint account. However, if the joint account holder opens a joint account for the purpose of preventing and supervising the deposit from withdrawing the deposit by himself/herself until the purpose of the joint account is achieved, one deposit claim is divided in quantity, and the joint account holder belongs to each joint account holder, and the right to manage and dispose of each share of the joint account holder belongs to each joint account holder, and each joint account holder belongs to each other. However, all joint account holders shall jointly file a claim for the payment of the bank by a special agreement on joint return (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7319, Sept. 9

C. Determination

In this case, the Plaintiff and the non-party company have deposited a certain amount of money in a joint account for the settlement of liabilities not finalized in relation to the acquisition of equity shares, and there is no reason to view that the Plaintiff and the non-party company agreed to deposit in a joint account, such as conducting joint business. Thus, the deposit in this case is completed by the Plaintiff and the non-party company, and it

Furthermore, due to the characteristics of the contract of this case, the amount of the transfer price, deposit money, and extinguished membership bond deposited in the deposit account of this case may be increased or decreased by the flow of time. The plaintiff and the non-party company may agree to determine the share of the deposit claim of this case by applying a specific share ratio at all times regardless of such increase or decrease or change, or may agree to determine the share of the deposit claim by setting other standards than a specific share ratio in consideration of the above increase or decrease or change, etc. Therefore, the share of the deposit claim of this case which belongs to each of the parties at a certain point depending on which they agree between the plaintiff and the non-party company shall be determined, and the share of the deposit claim of this case determined thereby shall be divided into the plaintiff and the non-party company (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72430, Oct. 9, 208).

Meanwhile, according to the statement No. 1 and No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the Plaintiff, on April 22, 2008, before the Defendant’s seizure, the Plaintiff already declared that 121,49,950 won from the deposit account of this case and that the non-party company would not settle the above 81 unit shares to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2008 (or the date of settlement of judgment) to the date of full payment (the date of judgment No. 1 evidence No. 9). The Plaintiff had a share to demand the amount of damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from April 23, 2008 to the date of full payment (the date of judgment No. 1 evidence No. 9). The shares that can be demanded by the non-party company’s declaration of set-off have become final and conclusive from August 20, 2008 to June 29, 2015 (the above judgment of the Plaintiff No. 20. 96% shares).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the deposit money of this case should be reverted to the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant contests this issue, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons.