The distribution schedule of this case prepared on the premise that the effect of seizure on any one of the rights to claim for recovery of deposit and the rights to claim for payment is unreasonable.

Unlike the right to claim the return of this case against the defendant of the non-party company, the plaintiff's right to claim the return of this case against the defendant of the non-party company is judged not to have actually occurred or to have already terminated, and there is no evidence to prove the existence of the above right to claim the return of this case. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case prepared on the premise that the defendant seized the plaintiff's right to claim the return of this case against the defendant.

Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Single 7303 Objection against a distribution

AA Construction Corporation

Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Principal Tax Office)

September 18, 2012

October 5, 2012

1. In the instant court’s dividends procedure case 2012taba208, the amount of dividends against the Plaintiff out of the dividend table prepared by this court on June 20, 2012 shall be KRW 000, and the amount of dividends against the Defendant shall be corrected to KRW 000, respectively.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Legal relations premised on between the Plaintiff and the BB

1) BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "non-party company") filed an application for provisional seizure of claims against the Plaintiff on June 29, 2009 by this Court 2009Kadan1290 on June 29, 2009, and deposited KRW 000 as 739 of this Court on July 8, 2009 upon receiving a court order to provide security (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit in this case").

2) A) On November 2, 2009, Nonparty Company filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the construction cost, and finally rendered a judgment of partly citing a claim amounting to KRW 000 out of the final claim amount of KRW 000 from the court, and concluded on December 27, 2011 (Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Gahap498 decided November 5, 2010, and Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Na2382 decided August 11, 201 and Supreme Court Decision 201Da83042 decided December 27, 2011).

B) On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with Nonparty Company for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs with the Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court 2012Kao-2, and received a ruling of award from the above court on February 22, 2012 (see the following (b)-2).

B. As to the claim for recovery or withdrawal of the deposit of this case, seizure, etc. 1) of the defendant (competent: prime tax office), such as the claim for withdrawal of the deposit of this case, etc.

On July 14, 2011, the Defendant (the State Tax Office) seized the amount of national taxes in arrears among the claims against the Defendant (the competent court) for payment of the deposit money of this case, which the Plaintiff, who is a delinquent taxpayer under the National Tax Collection Act, possessed by the Defendant (the competent court).

2) Provisional seizure against the Plaintiff’s right to recover the instant deposit

On January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a provisional attachment of the amount up to KRW 000 out of the right to recover the deposit money of this case against the Defendant of the non-party company (the jurisdiction of this court) with the claim of 000 won against the non-party company as the claim of lawsuit against the non-party company under the jurisdiction of this court (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional attachment of this case").

3) All of the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of the instant deposit

On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment and assignment order (hereinafter referred to as the “instant attachment and assignment order”) to which the provisional attachment against KRW 000,000, out of the claims to be recovered from the instant provisional attachment order pursuant to the instant provisional attachment order by this Court No. 2012TT735, was transferred to the original attachment, and the above attachment and assignment order was finalized on March 12, 2012, and on March 30, 2012, the Defendant (competent court: this court) was assigned to the non-party company, the debtor, and on March 30, 2012, it was finalized on April 7, 2012.

C. Reporting the Defendant’s grounds for concurrent seizure of claims and proceeding with distribution procedures, etc.

1) On March 13, 2012, following the date of receipt of the above attachment and assignment order, the Defendant (Jurisdiction: this Court), the garnishee of the instant attachment and assignment order, deposited KRW 00,00, and reported the cause of the instant claim for the claim for the recovery of the deposit (e.g., the claim for payment). Accordingly, the distribution procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution procedure”) was initiated on the ground that “The claim for the recovery of the deposit is filed after the concurrence of claims such as the seizure order, etc., as in the above B-1, 2, and 3).”

2) On May 1, 2012, when the instant dividend procedure was in progress, the Plaintiff asserted that he succeeded to the portion of KRW 000 out of the right to claim the recovery of the instant deposit from the Nonparty Company in accordance with the attachment and assignment order of this case, and filed an application for the cancellation of subrogated security with the competent court No. 20195 against the Plaintiff, who is the secured right holder, as the successor of the Nonparty Company, and received a decision to revoke the security of KRW 00 out of the instant deposit on the ground of the consent of the secured right holder (hereinafter referred to as the “decision to revoke the instant security”).

3) On June 20, 2012, on the date of distribution of the instant distribution procedure, the instant court prepared and presented a distribution schedule stating that the Defendant (the jurisdiction of the Defendant: prime tax office) distributes the total amount of KRW 000 out of the total amount of KRW 000 of the amount of credit of the Defendant (the original tax office), on the grounds that the Defendant is the person holding the right to seize the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution on June 20, 2012, one week thereafter.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 7, and Eul evidence 1 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The attachment under the jurisdiction of the Defendant (the State Tax Office): the Plaintiff is the right to claim the return of the instant deposit against the Defendant (the jurisdiction of this court); and the provisional attachment and attachment by the Plaintiff is the right to claim the return of the instant deposit held by the non-party company against the Defendant (the jurisdiction of this court), and there was no room for exercising the right to claim the return of the said deposit because the Plaintiff did not suffer damage due to the provisional attachment of the claim against the non-party company No. 2009Kadan1290. Accordingly, the distribution schedule of this case established on the premise that the right to claim the return of the instant deposit and the right to claim the return of the deposit are uniform.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The attachment under the National Tax Collection Act is effective on natural or legal fruits arising from the attached property, and the claims for payment and recovery of deposits are identical to the cause of the occurrence, and the claims for collection are incidental to the claims for payment and can be seen as legal fruits. Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case made on the premise thereof is justified.

3. Determination

The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is the right that the deposited person can claim the payment of deposited goods against the deposited office, and the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods refers to the person who has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods on the ground of the existence of reasons such as the extinguishment of the cause of deposit, mistake, etc., and the right to claim the return of deposited goods at the request of the depositer or his successor, and even if the object is the same, it cannot be deemed as a completely independent right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 91Ma501, Nov. 18, 1991) and the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money is not a legal negligence incidental to the right to claim the withdrawal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 9Ma501, Nov. 18, 1991). Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case prepared on the premise that the remaining effect of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods and the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money is unfair under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff as well as the right to claim for provisional seizure of this case.

4. Conclusion

Then, among the distribution schedule of this case, the amount of 00 won for the defendant (competent tax office: the amount of 00 won for the defendant (competent tax office) shall be deleted, and correspondingly, the amount of 00 won for the plaintiff shall be corrected to 000 won (Article 161 (2) 2 of the Civil Execution Court provides that when the creditor has been raised in a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution filed by the debtor, the court shall revise the distribution schedule for the creditor who has not raised any objection to the distribution, the court shall revise the distribution schedule for the creditor who has not raised any objection to the distribution. However, in the distribution procedure of this case, the plaintiff stated an objection to the distribution schedule in the qualification of the debtor (see, e.g., the evidence 1-13) and the distribution for the plaintiff (see, e., the evidence 1-13), and the claim of this case by the plaintiff shall be accepted as reasonable grounds.