Any claim against the plaintiff's delinquent taxpayer is nonexistent or it is null and void as it is formed in collusion.

Any claim against the plaintiff's delinquent taxpayer is invalid because it does not exist or it is formed by the collusion in collusion.

Seoul Eastern District Court-2015-Ban-13196

00

Korea

oly 19, 2017

2017.02.06

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Tagi1837 On March 31, 2015

Of the dividend table prepared, 140,307,482 won for the defendant shall be deleted, and it shall be corrected to change the dividend amount to 140,307,482 won for the plaintiff.

1. Circumstances leading up to the preparation of the distribution schedule of this case;

(a) Until the deposit of dividends in Suwon District Court 2009 nois 6805; and

1)****** in registered record***** in registered record) is placed on the right to collateral security against friendly**.

On February 3, 2009, Suwon District Court 2009.2.2. 3.2. 1* by head of Suwon*****Gu**Gu** 280 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) filed an application for auction of real estate, and the above court accepted it and rendered a decision to commence auction on February 4, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction”).

2) The instant land:******** on May 30, 2008, the following order of the Depository, the maximum debt amount of 750,000,000 Ghana* on May 30, 208, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage in the name of * (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed security”).

3) From May 14, 2009 to September 16, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office under the Defendant issued a tax investigation on Company******* an architect (hereinafter referred to as a “class*”) whose representative was a corporation ****** an architect (hereinafter referred to as a “class”). As a result of the tax investigation, from October 14, 2009 to December 2009, notified ** of the total amount of KRW 4,026,906,170, including global income tax, capital gains tax, value-added tax, etc.**** of the corporate tax, value-added tax, etc. 4,14,167,980 won in total as corporate tax, value-added tax, *** of the controlling shareholder * of the controlling shareholder on November 14, 2009, the controlling shareholder of the tax Tribunal reduced the tax liability of KRW 3,314,139,309).

4)*** On August 10, 2009, during the tax investigation, on which the registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security in this case was completed with ** on the ground of transfer of contract (hereinafter referred to as the "first transfer"), the defendant, upon finding it, filed an application against * on September 28, 2009 for a provisional injunction against the provisional injunction against the disposal of collateral security by accepting the defendant's application on September 30, 2009 and the provisional injunction was (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional injunction in this case"), again, the defendant filed an application against * on February 4, 2010 for the right to claim the payment of dividends of KRW 500,000 with the Seoul Central District Court* on February 9, 2010 as the right to claim restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act under the Seoul Central District Court* on September 28, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "the provisional injunction in this case"). The above court accepted the defendant's application for provisional attachment.

5) Al** has completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security on March 17, 2010 to Cho* (C**************) on the right to collateral security of this case on March 17, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "second transfer").

6) At the instant auction procedure, the instant real estate was sold on August 28, 2009 and the highest price was unpaid, but on April 21, 2010, the highest price was unpaid. On April 21, 2010, red** was the highest price at KRW 751,50,000 on the date of sale, and was decided to permit the sale on April 28, 2010, and on May 24, 2010, the purchaser Red* paid in full the sales price*.

7) On June 24, 2010, the instant auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the amount of KRW 868,297,343, including the security deposit, sales price interest, etc. confiscated by the purchaser who has not paid the price, among the amount to be distributed in KRW 868,297,343, excluding the execution cost and the dividends of senior creditors ** (hereinafter “instant auction distribution”).

7) The subordinate mortgagee************************) has an objection to the amount of distribution against Cho*** on July 1, 2010, who has filed a lawsuit of demurrer to distribution against Suwon District Court 2010 A*** on October 21, 2010, and withdrawn the lawsuit on October 21, 201.

8) On July 8, 2010, 201, 137,183,354 won including the interest on the deposit in the dividend amount of the auction of this case ** on the ground that the filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution **** the filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case and the provisional seizure of this case by the defendant was deposited as Suwon District Court* in 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case").

(b) Fraudulent action against the defendant's inside**

1) On March 9, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap* as Seoul Central District Court 2010* on the ground that the first assignment of the right to collateral security in the instant case is a fraudulent act, demanding the revocation of the agreement and reinstatement thereof.

2) Within the above lawsuit** was set on May 26, 2010 due to the failure to submit a written answer, but the date of rendering a non-drawing on May 26, 2010 was determined by the purchaser at the auction of this case, the above date of the sentence was cancelled on July 5, 2010 after the two times was changed, and the Defendant changed the purport of the claim to seek compensation for the amount of KRW 500,000 with respect to the cancellation of fraudulent act, and in that process, ** alleged that the auction dividends of this case were actually received. And ** did not give any answer to the changed claim, so the confession as to the changed claim ** was established as a confession as to the receipt of the auction dividends of this case*

3) On December 8, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment citing all the defendant's claims, and that ruling.

Judgment has become final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as "Wan* Judgment").

C. Implementation of the instant deposit as a dividend procedure

1) The instant deposit remains as it was deposited after withdrawal of the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution*****.

2) On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Seoul Central District Court 2012 (j)*, 2012 (j) (*, 2012 (j)**, respectively, to jointly pay two promissory notes with a face value of KRW 300,000,000 issued on August 8, 2007 and damages for delay after August 9, 2009. The above court accepted the application and issued the payment order on May 9, 2012, and each of the above payment orders became final and conclusive (hereinafter above 2012 (*), 2012 (j) (*), 2012 (j) (*), 2012 (j)** respectively.

3) On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a collection order against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014 other bond* as the title of execution against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014 other bond** the second payment order as the title of execution. The above court accepted the application on September 24, 2014, issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter referred to as “1579 collection order”) and issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter referred to as “1579 collection order”), and the above order was served on the Republic of Korea as the garnishee on September 29, 2014.

4) On September 29, 2014, the deposit officer of the Suwon District Court was served with the notice of the reasons for deposit in the Seoul Eastern District Court** the Seoul Eastern District Court having jurisdiction over the Gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant reasons for deposit”) on the grounds of seizure around September 29, 2014, and on October 8, 2014, the Seoul East East District Court 2014ta* the Seoul East Eastern District Court * the distribution procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “instant dividend procedure”).

D. Progress of the instant distribution procedure

1) On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a collection order against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TT* as the title of execution against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TT* the first payment order. The said court accepted the application on November 12, 2014, issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the instant deposit (hereinafter referred to as “18432 collection order”), and the said order was served on the Republic of Korea as the garnishee on November 17, 2014.

2) On March 31, 2015, the instant distribution court: (a) prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 140,307,482, excluding the execution cost, among the amount to be distributed in total of KRW 140,330,532, including the interest on deposit, etc. on March 31, 2015, was fully distributed to the Defendant by the person holding the right to provisional seizure; and (b) stated an objection against

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Both claims

1) Plaintiff

Despite the provisional disposition of this case, the provisional attachment of this case was made as ** 2. The provisional attachment of this case concerns the right to claim payment of dividends** as to the right to claim payment of dividends, which has no effect on the dividends of this case***. Therefore, the auction dividends of this case were reverted to ***, the defendant, who is merely a creditor of compensation for the value**, is not in the position to receive dividends in the distribution procedure of this case for the auction dividends of this case, and ** as the only creditor against *, the plaintiff, who has received the payment order of 1 and 2 and the collection order of 1579, 18432, shall receive full dividends

2) Defendant

Since transfer No. 2 is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, there is no right to claim dividends **. The plaintiff's assistance* does not have a right to claim dividends. The plaintiff is not in a position to receive dividends.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the validity of the second transfer

Even though it is a disposal act in violation of the prohibition of disposal provisional disposition, if the creditor of the provisional disposition intends to deny its validity, he shall obtain a final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition, and even if the identity of the claim is recognized between the right to be preserved and the right to the merits of the lawsuit, if the right to the lawsuit on the merits is a monetary claim other than the right to be preserved in the lawsuit on the merits, the effect of the provisional disposition cannot be said to affect the right to the lawsuit on the merits.However, the defendant brought a lawsuit against the creditor ** after the provisional disposition in this case, but he sought compensation not for the execution of the procedure for the cancellation of registration of the registration of the right to collateral security transfer, but for the restoration to the original state due to the cancellation of the fraudulent act.* The judgment cannot be a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the right to be preserved in the provisional disposition in this case.* The defendant could not assert that the transfer has become null and void due to the effect of the provisional disposition in this case** the transfer of claims ** the right to claim for restitution against the deposit in this case** the settlement of the settlement of this case**.

2) The plaintiff's assistance* Judgment on the existence of a claim against the plaintiff's assistance*

However, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the defendant may make all arguments that can dismiss the plaintiff's claim by means of defense, and the amount of dividends against the defendant does not exist because the defendant's claim does not exist and distributed to the plaintiff as a matter of course on the ground that the amount of dividends against the defendant does not exist, but can be deleted from the amount of dividends against the defendant and distributed additional dividends against the plaintiff only when the plaintiff has claims to be additionally distributed to the plaintiff. Thus, even if the defendant did not raise an objection against the plaintiff's claim in the distribution procedure, the defendant may deny the existence of the plaintiff's claim as a ground for rejecting the plaintiff's claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da9398, Jun. 25, 2004; 2010Da4259, Jul. 12, 2012

First of all, the first payment order and its objection were issued after the report on the reason of the deposit in this case. The report on the reason of deposit in this case has the effect of blocking the subscription of dividends, so the existence of the first payment order and the first payment order cannot be considered in this case. Thus, it is judged only to the first payment order which is the basis of the 15579 collection order, which has the effect of joining the dividend.

According to Gap evidence No. 17-1, 5, 6, and Eul's evidence No. 17-1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, 29, 31-1, Eul evidence No. 14-1, 2, and 3-2, each of the following circumstances, i.e., ①*** as a co-offender in the related fraud case, *** entered into a consulting service contract with the U.S. public accountant, and ****'s maximum of 30,00,00 won received consideration from the plaintiff, and the last *0,000,00 won received service charges,****1,00,000,000 won for whom the plaintiff did not appear to have been issued *****1,00,000,000 won for whom the plaintiff's new payment order was not issued ****,00,00,000 won for whom the plaintiff had no interest.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.