Whether a claim held by the subrogation right holder of a delinquent taxpayer is subject to seizure.

Since the director of the tax office holds only national tax claims against the delinquent taxpayer, he/she cannot seize the above claims against the defendant by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and there is no evidence to deem that the above claims against the defendant were seized.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,80,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6 (including a branch number if there is a serial number):

A. The Plaintiff holds 10,180,90,905,380 won of the total amount of national taxes in arrears around August 2008.

B. Meanwhile, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking transfer of ownership and transfer of ownership as unjust enrichment by the subrogation right against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was entrusted with several real estates from Kim Il-ju or transferred the status of the trustee. On March 10, 2008, Seoul High Court 2006Na94552 issued the following compulsory adjustment order (hereinafter “instant compulsory adjustment”), and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time. At that time, the Plaintiff participated in the said lawsuit against the Defendant by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation.

C. On May 16, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) seized an amount equivalent to the amount of delinquent taxes, out of 6.8 billion won and delay damages payable by the Defendant to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (including the Plaintiff, an auxiliary intervenor) pursuant to the compulsory adjustment of the instant case pursuant to Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, with the debtor Kim Il-il and a third debtor as the defendant; and (b) the said decision was served on the Defendant on May 21, 2008.

D. The Defendant paid 3.4 billion won to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation on May 29, 2008.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's ground for claim

Even if the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation exercises the right of subrogation against the obligor Kim ○ upon the obligee’s subrogation right, its effect belongs to the whole obligee of Kim ○, and the Plaintiff, as a priority holder under Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act, seized the claim against the Defendant of Kim ○-ju in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the National Tax Collection Act in order to prevent the Plaintiff from receiving the preferential repayment by offsetting the claim against Kim ○-soo, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6.8 billion and delay damages.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant Kim ○-man upon the confirmation of the compulsory adjustment of this case does not exist any longer, and the plaintiff attended as a supplementary intervenor at the time of the compulsory adjustment of this case and did not raise any objection against the decision of compulsory mediation. Therefore, the claim of this case is not in violation of the good faith principle, but it is without merit contrary to the res judicata effect of

3. Determination

According to Gap evidence No. 4 (Attachment Report), it is recognized that the claims for the seizure of this case were 6.8 billion won against the defendant of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation established by the compulsory adjustment of this case and damages for delay.

However, since the Plaintiff only has a national tax claim against Kim Jong-il, it cannot seize the above claim against the Defendant by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (the foregoing attachment report includes not only the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation but also the Plaintiff included in the payment of the seized claim) and there is no other evidence to deem that the Plaintiff seized the claim against the Defendant by Kim Jong-soo, the debtor of the attachment of this case. Thus, the attachment of the Plaintiff’s claim has no effect.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.