The State may request the third obligor to pay the amount of money seized by subrogation of the defaulted taxpayer.

The State may request the third obligor to pay the amount of claims attached by subrogation of the defaulted taxpayer, and the obligation to pay the amount of claims collected by the defendant, who is the obligor of the attached claim.

2018Gahap515093 Collections

Korea

AAA, Inc.

November 22, 2018

December 13, 2018

1. From March 28, 2018 to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 000 and its amount to the Plaintiff.

15% of the annual interest rate shall be paid.

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. Occurrence of the defendant's obligation to pay collection money;

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 2, the head of the tax office of the Plaintiff’s OO attached the claims (including the claims that accrue before and after the change; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) against the Defendant of the KK under Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act on August 8, 2016 for the collection of national taxes, etc. (9,091,50 won as of September 30, 2013) in arrears by the KK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “K”), and the Defendant issued 00 won for the goods supplied by the Defendant on September 1, 2017.

According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act (the director of the tax office shall subrogate the creditor who is the delinquent taxpayer within the delinquent amount if he/she has notified the attachment of claims), the defendant is obligated to pay 000 won the above amount of goods supplied by KK to the plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from March 28, 2018 to the date of full payment after the copy of the complaint of this case is served.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that since the defendant has already repaid 100 won out of the above goods price to KR, the defendant returned the goods equivalent to 000 won to KR, the defendant asserts that the goods price to be paid to 00 won is 00 won.

① In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant repaid KRW 000 to KK, as alleged by the Defendant, and even if the amount was repaid to KK, the due date for the payment of the goods was after the issuance date of the electronic tax invoice ( September 1, 2017), so it cannot be set up against the Plaintiff, who is the seizure authority that became effective prior to the seizure. Thus, the above argument 1 is without merit.

② We examine the above arguments. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the Defendant entered into with KK.

Article 4(1)2 of the Product Supply Agreement of June 23, 2017 for products supplied by the Defendant (Defendant)

No product manufactured by machinery shall be returned to A (KK) unless there is any reason attributable to him/her: Provided, That this shall not apply to any product manufactured by machinery.

Only for the supplied goods, the entire and selective return may be made when the sales are not made within the distribution period."

The facts stated by the Defendant. On February 19, 2018, the Defendant: “The entire amount of the cosmetics purchased by the Defendant from KK for sale within the distribution period is returned to K, and the entire amount of the cosmetics for the expiration of the distribution period.”

On March 31, 2018, KK issued a tax invoice with respect to KRW 000 on the ground of the time limit for distribution return to the Defendant on March 31, 2018. However, according to the result of the response to the order to submit tax information to the head of the OO of this court, the Defendant’s inventory assets as of the end of 2017 can be recognized as “0”. Accordingly, the facts acknowledged earlier do not appear to have been actually or normally returned between the Defendant and KK under the product supply contract as of June 23, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. It is difficult to view that the Defendant based on the above notice of seizure that there was a legitimate ground for defense between KK and the execution creditor prior to that time. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.