It is true that all claims and obligations other than claims for collection under a contract to bring an action has been terminated.

A claim for set-off against a claim for collection shall not be deemed to have been established as a collateral to secure the payment of delinquent tax by agreement to adjust all debts among the persons concerned; and

2013Gaz. 10645 Collection

Korea

OO

June 26, 2015

August 28, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 20% interest per annum from May 30, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

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. Basic facts

A. As of May 20, 2013, AA Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “A”) failed to pay a total of 10 won (including additional charges), including corporate tax, and 00 won (including additional charges), as follows:

B. AA lent KRW 000 to the Defendant on December 31, 2010 by setting the due date for payment (hereinafter “instant loan claims”).

C. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff’s head of the OO head of the tax office seized “amount up to the time of delinquency in national taxes (including increased additional dues and expenses for disposition on default added thereto) among the obligations that the Defendant is obliged to pay to A in accordance with Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act,” and the notification of attachment was served on May 2, 2012 on the Defendant (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

D. On March 25, 2013 and April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the amount of seized claims pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 30, 2013 to the date of complete payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., to the Plaintiff, an execution creditor who subrogated AA pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, who is an execution creditor who served the duplicate of the complaint in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Judgment as to the defendant's claim for offset

1) At the time when the instant seizure disposition is served on the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant set off the instant loan claim against A with automatic bond, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant had a total of KRW 000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

2) The written evidence evidence Nos. 3 through 9 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant has a claim against A against the Defendant. Rather, according to the following facts and circumstances that are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 25 through 27 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the rightO, which the Defendant and the representative director of AA, organized all the claims and obligations until the transfer of the agreement between the said parties through an agreement on April 4, 2012, and the Defendant pays a million won to A, and the Defendant establishes a collateral security right against A with regard to the real estate attached to the Defendant, and the Defendant, AA, A, CO, and B confirmed that the Defendant would not have any claim against A, such as lawsuit, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s claim against A does not exist. Therefore, the above claim against the Defendant is without merit.

A) As in the instant case, the Defendant asserted a set-off against AA by asserting that the Defendant had the Defendant’s claim against A, the Defendant filed a claim against Suwon District Court 2013Kahap0000, which was recognized in the said court and its appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Na000), to cancel the registration of the right to collateral security (Seoul High Court 2014Na00) as follows.

① The Defendant is the real representative of AA, and the authorizedO is the co-representative of AA, who intends to create the funds for the use of the funds, received false sales tax invoices from the trading company, and remitted the funds to the trading company as if the normal purchase price was remitted, which was returned to the borrowed account, and created 00 won for the use of 00 won for the company, and embezzled the remaining 00 won for the corporate fund of A by using 00 won for personal purposes.

② On April 1, 2010, the Defendant was detained and prosecuted for the above facts constituting the crime, and on April 21, 2010

AA was released as a bail on April 29, 2010, after having fully repaid 000 won of embezzlement money to the relatives, including Dong Jae-guCC. On August 11, 2010, the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

③ On June 17, 2010, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 000 from A to secure the debt of the loan; (b) concluded a contract to establish a collateral security with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant, with the obligor, the Defendant, and the mortgagee A; and (c) completed the registration of the establishment of the collateral security.

④ On October 10, 2010, the Defendant demanded that the competentOO paid part of the amount of KRW 000 that the Defendant paid to AA, and the Defendant applied for provisional attachment registration on real estate owned by the competentO on October 10, 2010, and accordingly completed provisional attachment registration on November 9, 2010. On April 29, 201, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of KRW 000 (U.S. District Court 201Gahap00) against the competentO on December 222, 2011, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

⑤ On November 10, 2010, the management of a mortgage contract between the Defendant and AA was terminated, and on November 11, 2010, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was cancelled. In this regard, on August 31, 2012, the management of a mortgage contract was found guilty (the imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor with prison labor for two years and six years), for the following reasons: (a) the management of a mortgage contract was terminated in violation of the representative director’s duty to preserve the property of AA; (b) the management of a mortgage contract was terminated in mind with respect to the Defendant; and (c) the management of a mortgage contract was terminated in violation of the representative director’s duty to preserve the property of AA; (d) the management of a mortgage amount of KRW 000 of the maximum debt amount against the Defendant; and

④ On January 17, 2011, AA filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of KRW 000 billion against the Defendant (or KRW 2011,000,000). On March 29, 2011, AA filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of KRW 200 billion (or KRW 2011,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

7) In the course of embezzlement of corporate funds of AA, the Defendant and DuO received false sales tax invoices of an amount equivalent to KRW 0 billion from August 2006 to March 3, 2010, and evaded value-added tax equivalent to KRW 00 million and corporate tax equivalent to KRW 000,000. On January 4, 2012, the Defendant and DuO were convicted of criminal facts (one year, respectively). On January 4, 2012, the Defendant appealed to pay the evaded tax when he/she was exempted from the statutory detention (UA District Court 2012No00).

At the time, the delinquent tax amount of AA is equivalent to KRW 000, and the defendant paid part of the delinquent tax amount of AA during the appellate proceedings, and as of March 21, 2012, the delinquent tax amount of AA was equivalent to KRW 0 million.

8) On April 4, 2012, in order to resolve all issues related to AA and to be suspended from execution in a case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the Defendant: (a) voluntarily withdraws all relevant litigation, etc.; (b) concluded a mortgage contract with A and the maximum debt amount; (c) the obligor; (d) concluded a mortgage contract with the debtor; (d) the mortgagee; and (e) concluded a mortgage contract with the mortgagee; and (e) concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant and the ConveningO, to ensure the payment of delinquent tax amount; and (e) agreed not to proceed with any civil and criminal legal procedure related to AA, as follows: Provided, That the ConveningO did not indicate that it is the representative director of AA at the time of agreement.

9) On April 4, 2012, AA withdrawn a lawsuit against the Defendant (UA), subject to the foregoing agreement, against the Defendant (UA). On April 5, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the OO of the Suwon District Court (OO of the OO of the OO registry of the Seoul District Court, the obligor, and the mortgagee AA as the mortgagee, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form, on April 5, 2012.

(10) AA notified the Plaintiff, who has a tax claim against AA, to acquire the right to collateral on the attached property owned by the Defendant. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff seized the right to collateral security against the Defendant by Indiancom, and completed the registration on May 3, 2012.

① On May 16, 2012, in the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, in consideration of the fact that most of the evaded tax amount of KRW 850,000,000,000 for the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the Intervenor’s seizure on the claim for the right to collateral security, the Defendant was sentenced to a decision suspending the execution of imprisonment (one year, respectively suspended execution), and the judgment became final and conclusive.

(12) On March 25, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against A on April 1, 2013 against the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of mortgage near the registration of creation of mortgage. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

B) The date on which the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff had against the Plaintiff is the date of occurrence of the claim, (1) KRW 00 on December 5, 2011, KRW 00 on March 15, 201, and KRW 200 on March 15, 2012, and KRW 000 on the unpaid benefits from around 2006 to 2008, and KRW 000 on the loans (3) from January 4, 2007 to October 8, 207, and ④ in the case of the claim for indemnity due to the substitute payment for the construction payment, KRW 00 on April 18, 2006 to November 13, 207, all of the above agreements are reached.

C) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the agreement of April 4, 2012 was completed by AA to confirm that the Defendant did not exist in all claims, including claims asserted against A with respect to A, and that the establishment registration of the existing mortgage was completed by AA.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.