Suwon District Court-2015-Gohap-69436 ( October 27, 2017)

In cases of seizure based on a national tax claim with priority, the effect of seizure shall not be extended even if the seizure is concurrent.

In the case of seizure based on a priority claim, if part of the seized claim is specified, even if the amount of seizure exceeds the total amount of the seized claim, the effect of the seizure shall not be extended to the total amount of the seized claim.

2017Na2068142 Collections

SECTION 1, 200,000 notified at the time of the second attachment disposition, is obligated to pay the amount of delinquent local taxes 1)

(c)

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The due date for the claim for the construction payment of this case has not yet arrived according to the repayment order agreement

Judgment on the assertion that the case was not claimed

§ 1. The reasons for this section by the court shall be

Inasmuch as the relevant part of the judgment of the court below is the same as the reasoning of the judgment, it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

shall be quoted as follows.

1) "Amount in arrears" means an amount that includes national taxes in arrears, additional dues thereof, and expenses for disposition on default (Article 3(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act).

The ○ 7th parallels 20 to 8th parallels are as follows.

evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 13, evidence Nos. 3, 17, and 22, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

In light of the following circumstances, the facts found above alone are alone.

In the beginning of the Competing Project, the Defendant and the DR General Construction shall not be paid any balance of the land in this case.

It is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement to pay prior to the payment of the private price, and otherwise recognize it.

No evidence exists. The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

After the 10th page 8, the following shall be added and the 9th to 13th page shall be deleted:

According to the evidence Nos. 11) 36 and 37, after the completion of the instant officetel, the remainder of the instant land after the completion of the instant officetel.

(1) In the absence of full payment of the amount of construction costs, the amount of construction costs shall be paid for the comprehensive construction

It is recognized that construction cost has been paid. The Defendant, after completion, shall pay the construction cost to the DR Comprehensive Construction.

DR inevitably occurs due to problems, such as the rejection by the subcontractor of construction, etc.

payment is made, at the request of a joint construction, in contrast to the order of performance and instead from the DDR comprehensive construction

in the order of funds execution (No. 15). The State has accepted a written consent (No. 15) not to object to the order.

In short, according to the evidence evidence No. 37, even after November 7, 2013, the date on which the above written consent was written, the fact that part of the construction cost was paid to DDR General Construction on two occasions on November 15, 2013 and December 2, 2013, which is the date on which the said written consent was written. As such, in view of the time and details of the actual execution of the project fund, the fact that the construction cost was executed prior to the purchase and sale balance of the instant land can be verified even after the completion, contrary to the allegations by the Defendant.

12) The terms and conditions of the instant agency contract and each description of the evidence Nos. 26,27,34

in light of the statements of the person involved in the instant agency contract and security trust contract, this company

The construction cost and each land of this case after completion between DDR Comprehensive Construction and the Defendant at the time of the contract for the agency work

There seems to have been an agreement to settle the remaining amount, but the pertinent case of mS prior to such an agreement

the testimony and the content of the statement and the portion surrounding the payment of the construction cost between the DDR and the defendant after completion;

Taking into account the dispute situation, the unpaid construction project after the full payment of the remaining land of this case is made.

It cannot be deemed that there has been an agreement to pay the price.

B. As to the second attachment disposition of this case, it may be asserted by agreement in the order of repayment on July 17, 2014.

Judgment on the argument that there is a claim

1) The Defendant asserts as follows. DDR Construction and the Defendant’s primary seizure disposition of this case

The instant settlement agreement was reached that the unpaid construction price shall be agreed to KRW 718,749,778, Jul. 17, 2014, and the unpaid construction price shall be paid in accordance with the instant repayment order agreement. The effect of the instant first attachment order is limited to the delinquent amount of the instant first attachment order among the unpaid construction price claims, and attachment does not extend to the portion exceeding the delinquent amount of the instant first attachment order. Therefore, as to the claim for collection of the collection amount following the agreement on July 17, 2014, the Defendant may oppose the said repayment order agreement.

2) As to the attachment of claims due to the disposition on default of national taxes, Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act

In case of seizing claims, the Secretary shall attach such claims to the obligor of the relevant claim (hereinafter referred to as the "third obligor").

subsection (2) provides that "the director of the tax office shall give notice to the person in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Section 42 of the same Act provides that "To act on behalf of the obligee who is a delinquent taxpayer within the limit of the amount of payment."

Attachment shall enter into force upon delivery of the notification of attachment to the garnishee.”

(c) Article 43 of the same Act shall be limited to the amount in arrears in seizing claims;

C. However, it is clear that the scope of the amount of delinquent taxes to be preserved by the seizure of claims under the National Tax Collection Act is limited to the amount of delinquent taxes notified to the garnishee, and does not have any other provision regarding the extension of the validity of the seizure. In other words, if a new seizure order is issued after a part of a claim is already seized, it shall be deemed that each of the claims shall affect the whole amount of the claims (Article 235(1) of the Civil Execution Act). Accordingly, in case of a seizure based on a national tax claim with priority over a general claim, the effect of the seizure shall only be limited to the specific claim if a part of the claim is specified and the sum of the amount of the claims to be seized exceeds the total amount of the claims to be seized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 235(1) of the Civil Execution Act), and the effect of the seizure shall not be extended to the total amount of claims to be seized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 203Da38238, Oct. 11, 1991).

3) The notice of the first attachment disposition of this case was around April 3, 2014 and the notice of the second attachment disposition of this case was given.

The fact that the defendant delivered to the defendant on August 31, 2015, and each of the above notices of attachment stated as "the amount of money payable to the DDR General Construction and the amount equivalent to delinquent national taxes (including increased additional dues and expenses for disposition on default added later) out of the amount of money payable to the DDR General Construction and the transaction amount to be incurred in the future," and the defendant settled the total construction and unpaid construction price at KRW 718,749,778 on July 17, 2014, which is after the delivery of the first notice of attachment of this case, at KRW 718,749,778 on July 17, 2014, and the fact that the above construction price was executed according

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, national taxes based on priority national tax claims

Pursuant to the Collection Act, the first attachment disposition of this case was made and the payment of construction price, which is a seized claim, is unpaid.

Since the first attachment disposition of this case is limited to part of the claim, the effect of the first attachment disposition of this case

(2) The second attachment disposition of this case or other compulsory collection of this case

seizure and the total amount of such seizure exceeds the unpaid construction price;

The effect of the first attachment disposition of this case does not extend to the total amount of the unpaid construction cost claim.

In addition, the settlement agreement of this case, made after the first attachment disposition of this case, shall be borne by the defendant.

outstanding loans to the Agricultural Cooperatives of the IS as to the repayment of such outstanding construction costs; land

state An agreement to postpone the repayment period, which shall be paid after each payment of the balance of the purchase and sale of the ISC.

as of the date of the closing of the party hearing, the defendant paid all the remaining transactions to the ISO.

Since there is no evidence to determine the validity of the first attachment disposition of this case, the construction price unpaid.

It will be said that the due date has not yet arrived for the claims.

Therefore, the effect of the first attachment disposition of this case is the first pressure among the unpaid construction price claims.

Only national taxes and additional charges indicated in the notice of disposition shall be imposed on the notice of disposition, and the defendant shall have the secondary seizure office of this case

The remaining national taxes and additional dues to be preserved only by the portion shall be subject to the agreement of the grace period.

The defendant's assertion that the second attachment disposition of this case may be asserted by agreement of July 17, 2014 is reasonable.

4) As to this, the Plaintiff’s primary seizure under the proviso of Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act is DDR.

Attachment of all the accrued construction costs upon the Defendant of the General Construction. As such, attachment shall become effective

It asserts that this claim extends to the full amount of the licence. In the notice of attachment No. 1 of this case, the claims are “transaction price.”

It is not only specified as "amount equivalent to delinquent national taxes" but also presented as the basis of the plaintiff.

The obligor referred to in General Rule 43-01 of the National Tax Collection Act, "where the fulfillment of the obligor's financial condition against the claim is deemed certain," is the obligor of the seized claim, i.e., the obligor.

As this case refers to the defendant, "if deemed necessary" under the proviso of Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5) We examine the scope of collection by the first attachment disposition of this case.

According to the provisions of Articles 41 and 43 of the National Tax Collection Act with respect to the seizure of claims under the National Tax Collection Act, national taxes shall be collected.

The scope of national taxes to be preserved by the seizure of claims under this Act shall be the delinquent national taxes which have caused the seizure.

the debtor may be limited to the national tax notified to the debtor. In this case, collection based on the seizure of the claim shall be limited.

With respect to the scope of arrears, Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act shall apply to delinquent national taxes, additional dues, and delinquent dispositions.

section 21 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that subrogation shall be limited to expenses, including expenses.

section 2) The tax authority shall pay national taxes by the due date without the procedure for confirmation of the tax authority.

shall be naturally created pursuant to the provisions of Article 21 of the same Act and the amount thereof shall also be determined.

As a result, the notice of seizure of claims has the nature of interest in arrears of national taxes.

additional charges incurred due to the failure to pay the national tax described in the section shall also be subrogated as a matter of course.

include the scope of exercise of the right of collection under this subsection (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64494 Decided March 10, 2005)

[Reference]

Therefore, on May 11, 2018, as sought by the Plaintiff due to the first attachment disposition of this case.

The sum of the national taxes and additional dues in arrears can be collected from 390,815,590 won (specific details are referred to in the attached Form).

C. Sub-committee

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 390,815,590 and damages for delay.

any third debtor shall be liable for any delay from the time when he/she receives a request for the performance of national taxes.

the amount shall be the interest in arrears for the unpaid portion of national taxes, which is determined by the defendant.

2) Prior to the amendment by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011, Article 21 of the former National Tax Collection Act provides for additional charges and increased additional charges, but Article 22 provides for increased additional charges and increased additional charges, but the amendment by the above Act provides for the new additional charges and increased additional charges in a lump sum and abolish the term "increased additional charges".

The term "additional" was unified into "additional".

The Bank shall be liable for delay upon receipt of a claim for performance against the Bank (Supreme Court Decision 2004 delivered on July 9, 2004)

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da11582, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da59237 Decided December 9, 2010

Therefore, the defendant's 390,815,590 won and the delinquent amount for which the plaintiff seeks to file the lawsuit of this case.

264,276,760 won (national tax of 202,69,200 + additional dues of 61,607,560 won) is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at an annual rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the following day after the defendant received a claim for the performance of obligation and the full repayment of the principal and interest of loans to the International Agricultural Cooperative, from March 22, 2016, and from May 28, 2018, with respect to additional dues of 126,538,830 won, which the plaintiff seeks as a preparatory document from May 29, 2018, on which the above preparatory document was served to the defendant; and from May 29, 2018, each of the following day to the date the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the date when the defendant rendered a substantial judgment of the court of final payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder

The claim shall be dismissed for lack of reason. In the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions, the amount of the above-mentioned award shall be dismissed.

Since the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount is improper, the cancellation part shall be cancelled and cancelled.

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above shall be dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed as it is groundless.

Korea

AA

July 18, 2018

August 17, 2018

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered under the following order shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation portion shall be dismissed. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 390,815,590 won and 264,276,760 won among them, 126,538,830 won per annum from March 22, 2016, 126,538,830 won until August 17, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 631,285,730 as well as to the day of complete payment from October 27, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

It shall pay 15% interest per annum.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Therefore, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

○ Chapter 5, "In March 2016," "In March 21, 2016," shall be changed to " March 21, 2016."

The following is added as of May 11, 2018. The amount of delinquent taxes related to the first attachment disposition of this case at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit is KRW 358,161,240, and KRW 61,60,560, and KRW 155,492,040, among national taxes, KRW 155,69,000, and KRW 202,669,200, national taxes are in arrears. The amount of delinquent taxes related to the first attachment disposition of this case at the time of May 11, 2018 is as shown in the attached Form 5, 16, 16, and 17, are added to KRW A’s evidence 16-1,2, and KRW A’s evidence 17,560.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, since the provisions of Articles 26(1) and 34(3) and (5) of the instant Act apply to the settlement of business after completion of construction, DDR Construction may seek payment of the construction cost to the Defendant after the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan to the ISD agricultural cooperative. Since the principal and interest of the loan to the Defendant was fully paid on March 21, 2016, the due date for the payment of the unpaid construction payment claims for DDR Construction became due, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, among the claims for the construction payment of this case, shall not be paid to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.