propriety of the disposition of claims seized by deeming joint businessmen

Since the seizure disposition was cancelled after collecting the claims subject to seizure, it would have lost its effect as the seizure disposition became invalid or as the seizure was cancelled, it is inappropriate as it is subject to the revocation lawsuit whose effect has lost its effect.

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On October 11, 2005, the Defendant revoked the attachment disposition against the Plaintiff of KRW 22,356,30 and KRW 20,241,510 on the deposit of ○○ Agricultural Cooperative (Free Savings Deposit) and KRW 20,241,510 on the deposit of ○○○ Agricultural Cooperative (Free Savings Deposit) (It is obvious that “20,243,510, as stated in the purport of the Defendant’s claim, is a clerical error of KRW 20,241,510 on the record).

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in relation to Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3-1-5, Eul evidence 4 through 7, Eul evidence 11-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 12-1, Eul evidence 14-1, and Eul evidence 14-2, and there are no other objections.

A. On the ground of '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Dong', the instant club was operated from December 14, 200 to '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on December 14,

B. The Plaintiff, Dog○, Gag○, Dog○, and ○○○○ (hereinafter “joint entrepreneurs”) did not report the tax base and tax amount on the pro rata consumption tax and education tax for the instant club on June 2001. However, the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax on the pro rata consumption tax and education tax for the second term portion of 2001 was reported and paid.

On the other hand, joint business operators reported each tax base and each tax amount of special consumption tax, education tax, and value-added tax for the portion of December 2001, April 2002, and for the first term portion of January 2002, but did not pay each tax amount.

(c) On June 2, 2003, the defendant decided to impose 1,527,040 won (including additional taxes) 9,176,770 won + 2,350 won (including additional taxes) plus 7,065,79,790 won (including additional taxes), the total amount of 300 won (including additional taxes), 1,100, 590 won + 207, 305, 300 won including the special consumption tax and education tax for November 201, 207, 300, 100, 100, 100, 590 + 1,00,590 won (including additional taxes); 1,590 won + 1,590 won; 1,523,000 won including the additional taxes for special consumption tax and education tax for June 2, 201; 201, 307, 305 won including the additional taxes for each additional tax for 305 won (including 27, 305 won).

D. However, the Plaintiff did not pay each tax amount under the preceding paragraph 42,597,810 won [1,527,040 won of the special consumption tax and the education tax for the portion reverted to June 2001 + 7,065,790 won of the special consumption tax and the education tax for the portion belonging to November 2001 + 6,172,710 won of the special consumption tax and the education tax for the portion belonging to December 2001 + 5,647,90 won of the special consumption tax and the education tax for the portion belonging to April 2002 + 7,873,890 won of the value-added tax for the portion belonging to the special consumption tax and the education tax for the special consumption tax for the portion belonging to December 201 + 6,172,710 won of the special consumption tax and the education tax for the portion belonging to April 202 + 7,873,90 won of the value-added tax for the year 2002];

E. Accordingly, on October 11, 2005, the Defendant attached KRW 22,356,300 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against ○○ Agricultural Cooperative and KRW 20,241,510 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against ○○ Agricultural Cooperative and KRW ○○ Bank as part of the disposition on default on the total amount of KRW 42,597,810 in arrears and served the Plaintiff a notice of attachment of claims around that time (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

F. On October 14, 2005, the Defendant collected KRW 20,241,510 from ○○ Bank deposit claims of the Plaintiff, a seized claim, from ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, and KRW 22,356,30, respectively, deposit claims of the Plaintiff, a seized claim from ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, from ○○ Agricultural Cooperative on the 17th of that month, and appropriated them for the Plaintiff’s total delinquent tax amount. At that time, the Defendant released the instant attachment disposition on the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against ○ Bank and ○○ Agricultural Cooperative.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that "the instant club was operated jointly by the plaintiff's husband ○○ and Gari ○, ○○○ and ○○○○○○○, which is the plaintiff's husband, but only the business registration name of the instant club was reported, and the defendant judged the plaintiff as one of the actual joint business operators of the instant club, and issued each taxation and collection disposition to the plaintiff, and as part of the disposition on default on the corresponding deposit claim by the plaintiff, the attachment disposition of the instant club is unlawful and revoked."

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that "the attachment disposition of this case is no longer effective since it was already cancelled," so there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the attachment disposition of this case by the lawsuit of this case, and even if there is such legal interest, the attachment disposition of this case is legitimate, in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes."

B. Determination

On October 11, 2005, the defendant issued the attachment disposition of this case on the 14th and the 17th of that month, and collected all of the claims of the plaintiff ○○ Bank and ○○ Agricultural Cooperative upon the attachment disposition of this case on the 14th and the 17th of that month, and then cancelled the attachment disposition of this case around that time. Accordingly, the attachment disposition of this case became invalid as the claims subject to attachment were extinguished within the scope of the amount collected by the defendant, and its remainder became invalid as the attachment disposition of this case was cancelled. Thus, the lawsuit of this case becomes the object of revocation lawsuit, which lost its validity.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.