Attachment of the right to demand a dividend payment for collection of delinquent national taxes is legitimate.

Attachment of the right to demand a dividend payment for collection of delinquent national taxes is legitimate.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 44956 Confirmation, etc. of Non-existence of Obligation

KoreaA

Republic of Korea 1 other

2014.07.22

2014.09.30

1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant leB pays to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from June 19, 2013 to September 25, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between Defendant leB, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea, shall be borne by the Plaintiff respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The plaintiff confirmed that the defendant leB did not have any obligation of OOOB based on the right to collateral security listed in the attached list. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff leB the amount calculated by 5% per annum until the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit on the part of the claim for confirmation

We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the part of the claim for confirmation among the lawsuits in this case.

A lawsuit for confirmation is an effective and appropriate means of dispute resolution, and there is a benefit of confirmation. Although a lawsuit for performance, which is the direct means of dispute resolution, can be filed, the claim for confirmation of the existence of the claim for performance itself or the lawsuit for performance is pending, and the debtor may contest the existence of the obligation by seeking a ruling of dismissal of the claim in the lawsuit, it is deemed that there is no benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation of the absence of the obligation separately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2001Da2246, Jul. 24, 2011). As seen in the purport of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for performance against the defendants on the premise that the plaintiff did not have an obligation against the defendant leB, the part of the claim for confirmation in this case is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant leB for implementation

A. The indication of claims: The same is as the description on the plaintiff and defendant leB in the separate statement on the grounds of claims (Provided, That the plaintiff does not specify the starting point of reckoning damages for delay in the purport of claims, but it appears that the payment of dividends is completed on June 18, 2013, which is the day following June 19, 2013, which appears to be the starting point of reckoning the date on which the defendant leB acquired unjust enrichment as the starting point.)

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) Facts of recognition;

○ OOO-dong O-dong No. 177-1 O apartment O-dong O-dong No. O-dong(hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) was owned by the Plaintiff Han-A.

On February 9, 2004, on the instant real estate, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) indicated in the attached list, which is the debtor and Defendant B as a mortgagee, was completed.

On November 14, 2012, Defendant leB applied for the “real estate auction to exercise the right to collateral on the basis of the instant collateral security ( Daegu District Court 2012 OOOO). In the application, Defendant leB stated that the Plaintiff has a claim for the loan of OOB to the Plaintiff.

On March 4, 2013, which had been prior to the date of sale of the said auction case, filed an application for the extension of the date of sale on March 4, 2013, and the date of sale was postponed once on the grounds that Defendant leB had been in consultation with the debtor. However, as the procedure was conducted, the sale price was awarded at the OOB, and the procedure was subsequently conducted, and the auction became final and conclusive on the grounds that there was no objection.

○ However, there was a national tax (OOB) in arrears, and the Defendant’s Republic of Korea seized Defendant leB’s right to claim dividend payment, and collected the total dividend payment on June 20, 2013, and appropriated the national tax in arrears.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the facts with significant facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that since the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the existing establishment of the Fund in this case was completed during the period of lending the OOB to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff actually lent only OOB to lend it and then revoked the loan contract, the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the existing establishment of the Fund in this case was completed without any cause. Therefore, the defendant leB received dividends from the defendant leB and returned

C. Determination

Where the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed, the registration is presumed to be lawful and publicly announced as the true state of rights, and the party who asserts that the registration has been made unlawful shall be responsible to prove the counter-performance of the presumption.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the evidence as seen earlier and the following circumstances recognized by some testimony of the witness JeongF, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption of the establishment registration of the instant root solely with the entries in subparagraph 5-1 and 2-2 and the legal testimony of the witness JeongF. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

According to the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to easily collect money against the general monetary transaction practices and rule of experience.

○ The time when the establishment registration of the neighboring property of this case was completed on February 9, 2004. The Plaintiff neglected the registration even if it had been for eight years since the date of application for the auction of this case, even if it had been considered as the date of application for auction of this case.

After the application for auction of this case was filed, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate of this case, was notified in the process of the auction (at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if following the Plaintiff’s assertion), and the Plaintiff’s measures were made by the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate of this case (at the time of the request for auction of this case, the Plaintiff did not take any measures (at the time of the request of the Plaintiff), and did not seek a claim or obligation against the certified judicial scrivener who was entrusted with the affairs related to the auction of this case with Defendant PB, and the Plaintiff and Defendant PB. In order to withdraw the application for auction of this case, the said certified judicial scrivener notified Defendant PB of the necessity of the certificate of personal seal impression of the Plaintiff, the applicant, the Plaintiff, and Defendant PB, the Plaintiff did not take any measures (at the time of the withdrawal of the application for auction directly, there is no need for a certificate of personal seal impression). However, even though the Plaintiff did not take any measures (at the time of a certified judicial scrivener’s request for auction of this case, it is difficult to understand the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant leB is accepted, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant MaB is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.