Whether the dividend order for the claim for payment of deposit money is appropriate;

The benefit of confirmation is required as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant, and to eliminate such apprehension, danger, and risk (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). The part against the Republic of Korea does not have the benefit of confirmation.

Seoul Northern District Court 2014Gahap3133

National Health Insurance Corporation Yangcheon Branch

Korea

October 16, 2014

1. The part of the instant lawsuit against the defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Republic of Korea shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant OO, KimO, GaO, BaO, AAA transportation corporation, and BB transportation corporation confirm that the CCC bus deposited with gold No. 399 in Seoul Northern District Court in 2014, 15,290,417 won, which was 153,886,87 won, is the Plaintiff.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Republic of Korea is borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant OO, KimO, GaO, BaO, AA transportation, AB transportation, and BB transportation, are borne by

Cheong-gu Office

The defendants confirm that the CCC bus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CCC bus") was the plaintiff, among the 415,290,417 won deposited by the Seoul Northern District Court No. 399 in 2014, 153,886,871).

1. Basic facts

A. From January 1, 201, the Plaintiff collected health insurance premiums, pension premiums, employment insurance premiums, and industrial accident insurance premiums (hereinafter referred to as “fourth-party insurance premiums”) from around January 1, 201, pursuant to the National Health Insurance Act, the National Pension Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and notified Defendant BB transport companies (hereinafter referred to as “B transport”) of the fact that the amount of arrears in health insurance premiums of KRW 245,858,177 and the amount of arrears in employment and industrial accident insurance premiums of KRW 51,573,360 on September 8, 201 and around September 201, the Plaintiff seized each of the above claims for transportation revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the instant claims”).

B. Meanwhile, the defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government seized the claim of this case based on the delinquent amount of 14,216,250 won of local income tax of the defendant BB transportation and notified the bus union of the above seizure on May 14, 2010. The defendant Republic of Korea seized the claim of this case based on the delinquent amount of 34,350,720 won of corporate tax, etc. of the defendant BB transportation and notified the bus union of the above seizure on July 23, 2010. The defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Republic of Korea are prior to the dividend order of the plaintiff under the relevant statutes.

C. On the other hand, around May 10, 2010, Defendant OO, a general creditor of Defendant BB transportation, provisionally seized the instant claims pursuant to the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kadan2492 (the amount of claims KRW 14,652,50), and Defendant KimO, around May 10, 2010, provisionally seized the instant claims pursuant to the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kadan2493 (the amount of claims 4,41,000), and Defendant OOOO's provisional seizure order (the amount of claims 10,604,000,000,000) pursuant to the Seoul Southern District Court 200Kadan279 (the amount of claims 10,604,000,000) and the amount of claims 10,000,0000,000,0000,000).

D. As above, the bus union deposited KRW 414,425,305 of the instant claim amount as Seoul Southern District Court No. 4845 in 2010, when the seizure of the instant claim was concurrent.

E. In the distribution procedure of the above deposit, the Seoul Southern District Court 2010TA2283 reported to the above auction court the “processed wage and retirement allowance claim of Defendant BB transportation workers, such as the Park Hong-kak, with the top priority dividend order,” and accordingly, the said employees were paid the full deposit amount of the deposit amount = KRW 415,290,417 + KRW 414,425,305 + interest + KRW 898,332 - enforcement cost KRW 33,220). The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not receive at all dividends in the above distribution procedure.

F. However, ParkO, etc. was subject to criminal punishment for committing an offense, such as “the total amount of KRW 415,290,417 in the distribution procedure of Seoul Southern District Court 2010ta-2283 via fraud related to transportation revenue (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Gohap404 and the Seoul High Court 2014No1170, which is the appellate court thereof, currently pending in progress). The CCC bus accepting Defendant BB transportation deposited KRW 415,290,417 in the distribution procedure of the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2010ta-2283 on the ground that the amount of KRW 415,290,417 was erroneously distributed to Park Hong, etc. on January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service deposited KRW 399,415,290,417 as deposit in Seoul Southern District Court 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 to 15; substantial facts in this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the defense prior to the merits of the Republic of Korea

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is only the most effective means to obtain a judgment from the defendant when it is the most effective means to eliminate in danger, in danger, and in danger, in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

The plaintiff also acknowledges the fact that the defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Republic of Korea are more advanced than the plaintiff in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). As such, the part concerning the defendant, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Republic of Korea among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because there is no benefit

3. Requests for the confirmation of Defendant OO, KimO, Gao, Bao, AA transportation, BB transportation

The fact that the Plaintiff, a general creditor, is prior to the dividend order under the relevant laws and regulations rather than the Defendant OO, KimO, GaO, BaO, BaO, and AA transportation, is as seen earlier. The Plaintiff, a creditor, naturally, takes precedence over the dividend order in the distribution procedure, rather than the Defendant BB transportation, who is the debtor and the owner, and thus, the Plaintiff and the said Defendants have the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case. Ultimately, there is room for dispute over the dividend order or dispute over the dividend order in the future. Therefore, there is a benefit to seek confirmation as the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case against defendant Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Republic of Korea is unlawful.

Therefore, it is dismissed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's defendant OO, KimO, Gao, Bao, AA transportation corporation;

All claims against BB transportation corporations are reasonable, and this decision is delivered with the assent of all of them.

The decision shall be rendered as above.