Daejeon District Court-2016Kadan-108744 ( October 10, 2017)

The exercise of the offset right by the relevant bank on the ground of an erroneous remittance shall not be deemed to be denied its validity.

The exercise of the right of set-off shall be deemed not to extinguish the deposit claim against the bank of the non-party company by set-off, and its effect cannot be viewed as denying the validity of the right of set-off only to the plaintiff.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act (Attachment)

Daejeon High Court-2017Nu102103 (Law No. 18, 2017)

Do governor-General

o Head of the tax office

oly 2017.13

oly 2017.18

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The amount of dividends against the plaintiff shall be KRW 56,023,002, and KRW 56,023,002, out of the dividend table prepared by the same court on July 28, 2016 with respect to the distribution procedure case 2015TTTY 2015TY 150 shall be corrected to KRW 0,00,000.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows, except for the addition of ‘2. Additional Judgment', and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that the demand for distribution of this case by the defendant constitutes an abuse of rights or is against the principle of justice and fairness as an unfair exercise of rights. However, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant's demand for distribution cannot be seen as an abuse of rights or an unfair exercise of rights. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.