Confirmation of the person entitled to deposit payments;

Whether the right to deposit money is priority;

Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Gaz. 36928 Verification of Right to Return Deposit Money

IsaA

Republic of Korea and 10

September 22, 2015

November 3, 2015

1. All of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

BB corporation deposited by the Seoul Southern District Court No. 000 in 2012, 000 won deposited by the same court No. 0000 in 2012, and 000 won deposited by the same court No. 00000 in 2012, it is confirmed that the right to claim payment of deposit money of 000 won in the same court is against the DefendantCC.

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s assertion

A. On June 1, 2012, the designated parties indicated in the separate name list of the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “designated parties”) were working for DefendantCC (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 1) and retired on June 1, 2012. Defendant 1 did not pay KRW 000, 100, 100, 2060, 2060, and 060,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. Defendant 1 had more than KRW 200 million advertising expense claims against BB (hereinafter “B”), but in collusion with Defendant LaborF (hereinafter “Defendant 3”), who is the management director of Defendant 1, around May 2, 2012, Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 3 and Defendant YG (hereinafter “Defendant 2”); around April 18, 2012, Defendant 50 won in collusion with Defendant DDH (hereinafter “Defendant 5”)’s representative director II, and around June 27, 2012, Defendant 1 transferred KRW 953 won to Defendant 5 and notified each of the assignment of claims to Defendant 3 and YJ (hereinafter “Defendant 4”).

C. Upon receipt of the notice of each of the above assignment of claims, BB deposited KRW 00 as 00,000, 000, 2010, 2000, 2012, 2000, 2000, 2010, 2012, 200, 2000, 200, 2010, 2010, 201, 2012, 200, 300, 200,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,000,00,00 won,

D. The Plaintiff (Appointed) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against Defendant 2 and 3, who was assigned the advertising expense claim amounting to KRW 000,000 from Defendant 1. In the said lawsuit, the said assignment of claim was revoked as a fraudulent act, and restitution was made; ① Defendant 2’s claim for withdrawal of deposit against KRW 588,00,00, which was deposited by the Seoul Southern Southern District Court Decision 200, and Defendant 3’s claim for withdrawal of deposit against KRW 412, among KRW 00, which was deposited by the Seoul Southern Southern District Court Decision 200, and ② Defendant 2’s claim for withdrawal of deposit against KRW 530,000, which was deposited by the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 200, and ③ Defendant 1’s claim for withdrawal of deposit against KRW 882,000, which was deposited by the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 200, and that the assignment of claim against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3G were assigned to each of the above parties.

E. The designated parties, who are enforcement creditors, may receive dividends from each of the above deposited money after receiving a confirmation of the fact that the claim for payment of deposited money equivalent to the above KRW 000 is filed against Defendant 1. As such, the Plaintiff (designated parties) has a benefit to seek confirmation by the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (designated parties) brought the lawsuit of this case in order to obtain confirmation that each of the claims stated in the purport of the claim for payment of deposited money is against Defendant 1.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

Ex officio, we examine whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful. In a case where the grounds for the deposit for repayment in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the grounds for the execution deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act arise and the debtor made a mixed deposit, the court of execution should submit to the court of execution the document attesting that the claim subject to seizure belongs to the execution debtor, for example, to the extent that the obligee’s original creditor to receive the deposited amount through the confirmation of the existence of the assignment of claims and invalidity of claims, etc. is not confirmed, the court of execution should not proceed with the distribution procedure until the time, so long as the creditor’s original creditor to receive the deposited amount through the confirmation of the existence of the assignment of claims and invalidity of claims, for instance, the document attesting that the execution creditor belongs to the execution debtor to receive the distributed amount of the above deposited amount, for instance, the original copy of the judgment verifying that the debtor has the right to claim the payment of the deposited amount, a transcript of the same contents, and a written consent attached with the transferee’

Even if the plaintiff's assertion also depends on the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Gap's evidence Nos. 9 (including the serial serial number), each of the claims stated in the claim is a mixed deposit with the nature of the execution deposit as well as the repayment deposit, and the plaintiff's fraudulent act revocation lawsuit filed against defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and the assignment of the advertising non-deposit claim against defendant Nos. 1-2 and 3 is revoked in its entirety as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and as a result, the defendant Nos. 1-D., and the defendant Nos. 1-D., and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were ordered to transfer the right to claim the payment of the deposit and the notification of the transfer of the claim to the Republic of Korea is made by the plaintiff (appointed party) and thus, the claim for the payment of the transferred deposit has already been restored to defendant No. 1.

However, the final and conclusive judgment of a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above fraudulent act constitutes "documents evidencing that the claim subject to seizure belongs to the execution obligor" as stated in the above precedents (a final and conclusive judgment may be issued easily if the plaintiff files an application with the judgment court), and when the plaintiff (appointed party) submits it to the court of execution, the designated parties can exercise their respective rights as to each of the deposits stated in the purport of the claim, provided that other requirements are met. Therefore, in order to proceed with the distribution procedure, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation that there is a claim for withdrawal of deposit stated in the above fraudulent act against Defendant 1 in addition to the final and conclusive judgment of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the above fraudulent act cannot be deemed

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, it is so decided as per Disposition.