In collusion with the debtor and third-party debtor disputing the existence of collection claims, but it is null and void as it has conspired with each other with intent to avoid disposition on default by the plaintiff.

An agreement stating that there is no claim for collection, which states that the attachment notice by the plaintiff is issued to the defendants, shall be retroactively prepared for the purpose of evading the disposition on default by the plaintiff after the notice of attachment is delivered to the defendants. Thus, the agreement constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy under Article 108 (1)

False declaration of intention under Article 108(1) of the Civil Act

2016 group 126593 Collections

If the business performance of the telecom has not been exceeded 13 million won on one occasion for six months, d.

The circumstances were not significantly different during the period of this operation, and d'd' also gives testimony to do so.

D. If so, at the time of the sale of this case, D's KRW 150 million out of the purchase price was already paid.

in addition to the conditions stated in the agreement of this case, the contract shall not be entered into.

That is, it is very exceptional in terms of transaction norms.

⑤ Defendant Kimqq’s transfer income from the transfer of the instant telecom on January 14, 2016

‘Real Estate Acquisition Certificate (A9) submitted to the Plaintiff to confirm the amount of transfer in connection with the order

“Special Matters” column means that part of the remainder (as approximately KRW 150,000) has not yet been paid or part payment has not been paid.

35 million won is paid to the lessor (the lessor appears to be a clerical error in the seal) (the cost of KRW 35 million is the name of the construction cost);

The rest of the intermediate payment and the remainder are stated as "payment to the transferor". In addition, the same day is made.

"A correction of the certificate of acquisition of real estate submitted" shall be deemed to be an individual for the remainder of approximately KRW 150 million in the machine.

Due to the financial circumstances, there is no payment until now, and there is a "transferr" for the remaining part in the future.

Recognizing the circumstances, there is a statement that “The promise to pay by oral contract shall be paid in full.”

At this time, after the expiration of the sales confirmation period (from May to October 2015) of the instant agreement.

(c)

3) Accordingly, the agreement between the Defendants and Duds under the instant agreement is agreed upon, under the National Tax Collection Act.

Pursuant to Article 42, the Plaintiff’s above notification of seizure takes effect upon being served on the Defendants.

As a result of March 3, 2016, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff, as well as to the plaintiff.

Article 108 (1) of the Civil Act, which has been conspired with each other to avoid disposition on default;

It is also invalid because it constitutes a false representation.

4) Ultimately, the defendants' defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.

Korea

Ma Kima et al.

2017.06.28

2017.19

1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 148,518,040 won with 5% interest per annum from March 4, 2016 to December 12, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 13, 2016, 148,518,040 won (including additional charges) as of November 13, 2016, allocation of national tax claims against the Plaintiff Badddd’s Defendants were delinquent. (b) The Plaintiff Bad’s payment claims against the Defendants.

1) On January 14, 2015, dd. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. 1.3 billion won, 20 million won was paid on the contractual basis, 780 million won was succeeded to by the purchaser, 280 million won was paid on February 2, 2015, and 200 million won was paid on February 27, 2015, 30 billion won was paid on February 14, 2015, 30 billion won was paid on February 14, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "sale of this case"), 3 billion won was paid on January 14, 2015, 200 billion won + 3 billion won was paid on May 27, 2015.

1) In order to collect the above national tax in arrears, the Plaintiff seized the above sales price claims against the Defendants of Baddd on February 29, 2016, in accordance with Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the attachment, and on March 3, 2016, the above attachment notice was served on the Defendants.

2) On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that he/she would pay the amount of delinquent local taxes in arrears by September 16, 2016 and reached that time. Around that time, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that he/she would pay the amount of delinquent local taxes in arrears by September 30, 2016, and that he/she would pay the amount of delinquent local taxes in arrears by September 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, Eul 4 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, at the time of seizure of claims by the Plaintiff’s disposition on default, the claims for the purchase price against the Defendants of dived amounting to KRW 157 million (i.e., KRW 130 million - KRW 1143 million) remains. The effect of seizure of claims by the Plaintiff’s disposition on default pursuant to Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act reaches KRW 148,518,040 among the above delinquent amounts.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act.

The plaintiff, who subrogated to Eddd, has the obligation to pay the above delinquent amount of KRW 148,518,040 and delay damages therefor.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the instant purchase and sale, HD and the Defendants reserved the payment of KRW 150 million out of the purchase price, and agreed to waive D’s right to the said reserve amount if sales of KRW 13 million have not occurred at least four times a month after ascertaining the sales of the instant franchise for six months from May 2015 to October 2015. However, during the said period, LD waived waived the said reserve amount because the monthly sales of KRW 13 million were not at least once once more than 13 million. Accordingly, the seizure by the Plaintiff’s disposition on default was subject to a claim for which there was no seizure by the Plaintiff’s disposition on default, and the Defendants did not have any obligation to pay the said delinquent amount.

B. Determination

1) 을3의 기재에 의하면, 배dd과 피고 김ㅁㅁ 사이에 피고들의 위 주장과 같은 내용으로 된 합의서(이하 '이 사건 합의서'라 한다)가 작성되었는데, 위 합의서상에 그 작성일자가 이 사건 매매일자와 같은 '2015. 1. 14.'로 기재되어 있는 사실은 인정된다. 2) 그러나 앞서 든 증거 및 갑9의 기재[이에 반하는 을2(그중 확인서)의 기재, 증인 배dd의 일부 증언은 믿지 않는다]에 의하여 인정되는 아래의 사정들을 종합해보면, 이 사건 합의서는 '2015. 1. 14.'이 아니라, 원고에 의한 압류통지서가 피고들에게 송달된 2016. 3. 3. 후에 원고에 의한 체납처분을 회피할 목적으로 그 작성날짜만을 소급하여 작성된 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

① Of the purchase price obligations of KRW 1.3 billion, matters concerning the exemption of obligation of KRW 150 million and the terms and conditions thereof are ordinarily important matters to be indicated in the sales contract. However, the sales contract of this case (A. 3) does not contain any mention or indication as to such matters, and there is no mention or indication as to the agreement of this case.

② Examining the back of the original copy of the instant sales contract, the Defendants may verify the fact that the Defendants affixed documents different from the said sales contract along with the documents attached thereto. As to this, the Defendants drafted several copies of the sales contract for the instant cartels at the time. The Defendants merely asserted that the seller and the buyer shared two copies of the sales contract, and did not submit any supporting documents. Even if the Defendants’ assertion was true, the Defendants should have known that there was a need for a simplified person to secure the authenticity or simultaneousness of the documents prepared at the time. However, the instant agreement does not have any such simplified person.

③ The issue of whether the monthly sales for the above six-month period exceeds KRW 13 billion is an important matter to determine whether dived may receive KRW 150 million, an amount exceeding KRW 100,000,000, out of KRW 1.3 billion. However, although dived’s testimony on this issue was to verify the sales of the instant dived’s trading, it was entirely to confirm the sales of the instant dived’s trading. Thus, it is difficult to believe that dived’s testimony on this issue is difficult.

④ Since the Republic of Korea has operated the Modern for a considerable period of time, it seems that the monthly sales would have been most well known. As alleged by the Defendants, the Defendants would have been actually aware of the extent of monthly sales.