The third debtor cannot pay the money of the attached claim to the delinquent taxpayer after the seizure of the claim.

The third obligor shall not be paid the money equivalent to the attached claim to the delinquent taxpayer after the State attached the claim to the third obligor, and the third obligor shall be liable to pay the money and damages for delay paid to the delinquent taxpayer after the effect of the seizure to the State.

Article 238 of the Civil Execution Act, Lawsuit for collection

2013 grouped 4182 Collection

Korea

AAA Class B:

September 12, 2013

November 14, 2013

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the annual rate of 5% from February 5, 2013 to February 25, 2013, and the annual rate of 20% from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The KimCC is delinquent in taxes as follows:

The competent tax office

Items of Taxation

Date of Notice

Deadline for payment

Amount in arrears ( won)

○

Value-added Tax

April 1, 2008

April 30, 2008

OOO

B. On July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff seized the claim for construction price against the Defendant by KimCC, the Defendant’s third obligor, and the Plaintiff demanded the collection of the seized claim on March 5, 2009 and June 19, 2012.

C. On September 3, 2007, KimCC filed a suit against the Defendant for the claim for construction cost, etc. (the Jeonju District Court 2007Gahap000). On February 2, 2009, the ○○ District Court decided to recommend reconciliation that “the Defendant shall pay OOOO to KimCC by April 15, 2009, but, on the date following the due date for payment, the payment shall be made by adding damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum to the unpaid amount.” The decision became final and conclusive on February 19, 2009.

D. In accordance with the above settlement decision, the defendant remitted the OOO to the plaintiff on March 18, 2009.

E. On January 23, 2009, through an agreement with the KimCC, the Defendant paid OOOO to KimCC. On May 4, 2009, the Defendant withdrawn the total amount of OOOOO from the postal savings account (OO-O-O-O-OOOO-OOO-OO-OO-OO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including virtual number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 5, 2013 to February 25, 2013, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Around March 2008, the defendant requested the change of the service place from OO-type O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type to 000 (3 floors). Accordingly, the defendant served the defendant on March 5, 2008 and March 27, 2009, but the decision of seizure of claims as of July 25, 2008 was delivered by the defendant to the transfer place, and thus, the defendant did not receive the delivery of the decision of seizure of claims as of July 25, 2008 from the plaintiff, so the seizure of claims is null and void.

In a case where a postal item is sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed that it was delivered to the addressee at that time, barring any special circumstance such as return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1498, Jan. 15, 198; 91Nu3819, Mar. 27, 1992; 200Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000; 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2007).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 10-1, 10-3, the defendant applied for a change of the place of tax payment on April 2, 2009 and changed the place of service only on June 5, 2009. At the time of July 25, 2008, the plaintiff sent to the representative KimD by means of registered mail at OO-si, OO-O-O00, which is the place of service, and the fact that the defendant was served. The defendant sent the above fact of recognition to the changed place on March 5, 2008, and the statement No. 2-1 of evidence No. 2 that the defendant sent to the changed address on March 5, 2008 is insufficient to reverse the fact of recognition and there is no other counter-proof. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.