Since the notice of seizure and collection was served, it is liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee.

Since the delinquent taxpayer's claims for the repayment of loans against the defendant and the notification of collection was served on the third obligor, the defendant is liable to pay damages for delay after the due date for collection designated by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as the collection obligee.

Article 41 (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

2013Gaz. 10739 Collection

Korea

O KimO

April 2, 2014

May 14, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 38,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from March 29, 2014 to May 14, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 5/6 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the written application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of premise;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 3, 4-1, 2, and 5-11.

○O lent KRW 85,00,000 to the Defendant on February 5, 2009, KRW 25,000,000 on May 8, 2009, KRW 49,30,000 on May 15, 2009, and KRW 85,00,000 on May 222, 2009.

○ Meanwhile, on February 5, 2009, the UO paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant as a check separately.

○ On May 6, 2009, the Defendant purchased OOO No. 162-5 No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) from OOOO on May 6, 2009, and the UOO transferred KRW 100,000,000, total of KRW 50,000,00,00,000 on May 19, 2009, with an account under the name of KimO (*******-***************).

○ On May 22, 2009, the Defendant completed on May 22, 2009 the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”) on May 20, 209 with respect to the real estate in this case.

On December 11, 2009, ○O cancelled the provisional registration of this case, and on November 17, 2010, the Defendant again completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case 2”) on the ground of the promise to trade the real estate in this case on the same day.

○ As of June 1, 201, the UO was delinquent in national taxes of KRW 214,667,240 and additional dues of KRW 75,029,69,340 for capital gains tax as of June 1, 201. However, the Plaintiff was aware that the UOO had a right to claim for ownership transfer registration or a right to claim a loan of this case against the Defendant under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, and on June 19, 2013, the Defendant notified that the UOO’s right to claim ownership transfer registration and the right to claim a loan of this case against the Defendant is resolved by invalidation or cancellation of the contract, or that the provisional registration of this case No. 2 was sent by UO’s right to claim a refund of delinquent amount of KRW 274,690,520 (including any increased additional collection amount) as the right to claim a reimbursement of delinquent amount of KRW 275,690,340 until 20.36.281.6.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From February 5, 2009 to May 22, 2009, UO paid a sum of KRW 125,000,000 to the Defendant, and KRW 100,000,000 out of the purchase price of the instant real estate was lent to the Defendant, a seller, in lieu of KimO, and the instant real estate was registered to secure the above loan. In order to secure the above loan, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the seizure and collection of the claim against the above right to claim the repayment of the loan. Since the above attachment and collection notice were served on the Defendant, a third debtor, the Defendant is obligated to directly pay to the Plaintiff, a collection obligee, for delay after August 17, 2013, which is the day following the due date designated by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on loans totaling KRW 85,000,000

1) The UO lent KRW 85,00,000 to the Defendant on February 5, 2009, KRW 6,600,000, KRW 25,000 on May 8, 2009, KRW 49,300,000 on May 15, 2009, KRW 85,000 on May 22, 2009, KRW 80,000 on the amount of KRW 24,10,000 on the Plaintiff’s right to request the repayment of loans to the Defendant by UOO and notified the Plaintiff of the seizure and collection of the claims on June 25, 2013, and on August 12, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above collection amount of KRW 85,00,000 and delay damages, barring any special circumstances.

2) However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 9, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid KRW 47,000,000 out of the above money to the UO on September 11, 2010, prior to each service of the above attachment notification and the collection notification, can be acknowledged, and the Defendant’s defense that points this out is with merit.

3) In addition, on December 28, 2009, the Defendant offered the instant real estate to the OOO bank as collateral and loaned KRW 40,700,000 to OO as loans of KRW 35,700,000 out of the said money, and paid KRW 25,000,000 as loans of May 8, 2009, and KRW 4,100,000 as loans of KRW 4,00,000 on May 22, 2009. On September 11, 2010, the Defendant exempted O from the remainder of the loans of KRW 49,30,000 out of KRW 47,00,000 as loans of KRW 5,70,000,000 to O, and the Defendant exempted O from the remainder of the loans of KRW 20,300,000,00 as evidence.

4) If so, the defendant is obligated to terminate the above 85,00,000 won out of the loans of the above 85,000,000 won to the plaintiff as partial repayment and pay the remaining 38,00,000 won (=85,00,000 won - 47,000,000 won) and damages for delay.

C. Determination on remaining KRW 140,000,00

The fact that UO paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on February 5, 2009 is recognized as above. However, the above KRW 140,00,000,000 paid by UOO to the Defendant and KimO as alleged by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact by only the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 5 through No. 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 29, 2014, which is the day following the due date of the due date for the collection of the plaintiff, to May 14, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case, to the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case, as requested by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act and 30% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to