Whether the bank should pay the seizure deposit of the delinquent taxpayer under the name of the bank.

If, in principle, the account holder is a delinquent taxpayer, a financial institution shall pay seized deposits, unless there is a special reason to the contrary, to deem the account holder as a party to a financial transaction contract.

Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act (Effect of Attachment of Claims)

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with interest rate of 20 million won per annum from July 5, 2007 to the day of complete payment.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 7-9, 16, and 17, testimony at the main trial of a party, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The process of concluding the deposit contract in this case

(1) On December 31, 2003, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter the Intervenor) visited the Defendant’s branch to prepare and delayed an application for membership and a comprehensive transaction necessary for entering into a deposit contract in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter the previous deposit contract). On the part of the Intervenor’s husband, the Intervenor’s applicant is Kim ○○ (name Kim ○ in the application form) who is the husband’s husband, and affixed his seal on the Intervenor’s back to the name of Kim ○, and the Defendant’s employee in charge issued a periodical deposit passbook in the name of Kim ○k.

(2) On December 31, 2004, the intervenor visited the Defendant’s branch office again on the date of the said deposit contract, and concluded a deposit contract in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “the instant deposit contract”) after cancelling the said deposit contract, and redeposit the deposit amount of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

B. Legal disputes surrounding the determination of the party to the instant deposit contract and the result thereof

(1) On the other hand, on September 21, 2005, the first instance court filed a lawsuit against the defendant claiming the return or the confirmation of depositors by asserting that he was the party to the deposit contract of this case. On December 27, 2006, the intervenor also filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the deposit of this case against the defendant, and the independent party participating in the lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit of this case against the defendant. On February 9, 2007, the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the defendant on the ground that the party to the deposit of this case is Kim ○, a nominal owner, (2006No3631, 2006No5164).

(2) Accordingly, in the appellate court proceeding in the previous District Court case No. 2007Na1794, 2007Na1800 (Intervention) following the appeal by the Intervenor against the above judgment, a compromise was concluded between the Defendant and the Intervenor on April 27, 2007 to confirm that the right to claim the return of the deposit of this case between the Intervenor and the Defendant and the Intervenor to claim the return of the deposit of this case has been constituted (hereinafter the reconciliation

(c) Attachment disposition on the national tax in arrears and deposit claims of Kim Il-ran; and

Meanwhile, on the other hand, Kim Dong-gu, ○○○○○○-dong, 875-○○○○○○○-dong, a real estate rental business operator owned the above telecom on April 11, 2003, and the head of the tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified 32,529,070 won of value-added tax for the first term of 2003 on the ground that he did not make a voluntary payment of value-added tax at the time of the transfer of fixed assets on February 9, 2004, but he did not pay it. However, on September 1, 2005, he attached the deposit balance in the name of Kim Dong-dong until it reaches the above delinquent amount, and thereafter notified the Defendant of the attachment of the claim.

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of obligation to pay attached claims;

As a part of the procedure for the disposition on default of national taxes, the head of a tax office who seizes a delinquent taxpayer’s claim on behalf of the obligee (Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act). Therefore, in case where a claim is seized, the obligor of the seized creditor is liable to perform his/her obligation to the head of the tax office, who is the subrogated right holder, and after the so-called Real Name Financial Transactions System was implemented, the nominal holder should, in principle, be considered as a party to a financial transaction contract. As seen earlier, as long as the nominal holder of the deposit of this case is Kim Fu, who is the defaulted taxpayer, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is clearly aware that he/she falls within the scope of delinquent national taxes and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 5, 2007 following the delivery date of the written complaint of this case to the date of full payment

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) As to this, the Defendant first asserts to the effect that, although the transaction titleholder of the instant deposit contract was Kim○m, the Defendant entered into the instant deposit contract under the explicit or implied agreement to vest the instant deposit claim in the intervenor and the Defendant at the time of the instant deposit contract, and thus, the deposit contract with the deposit owner was formed, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that there was a claim for return of the instant deposit.

Therefore, as to whether there was an agreement between the defendant and the intervenor to vest the claims for the return of the deposit in the intervenor at the time of the conclusion of the deposit contract in this case, it is difficult to believe that each entry of No. 16-19 of No. 5 appears consistent with it was merely the unilateral assertion of the parties concerned. As seen earlier, the intervenor took the lead in the process of entering into the deposit contract in this case, such as the cancellation of the previous deposit contract and the re-deposit of the deposit in this case. In the process, the defendant was also recognized as having carried out the affairs for the withdrawal of the deposit in this case under the direction of the intervenor, but the agreement was not prepared in order of No. 5-1, No. 10, No. 13-16, Oct. 27, 2003, and No. 2003, Nov. 10, 2003, each of the above agreement was made under the name of the intervenor and the intervenor in this case, and there was no clear evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was made under the name of the intervenor and the defendant 10001.4.1.

Rather, when considering the statement Nos. 3 and 7 as well as the purport of the entire pleading in the testimony of the witness of the party at the time when the plaintiff entered into the previous deposit contract, the defendant's employee Kim ○, among the column for verifying actual names and verifying actual names at the bottom of the above application, shall be left blank and the defendant's official column was copied to the agent column, and the intervenor was issued a passbook under the name of Kim ○-c, and the Jeju, which was in charge of verifying actual names at the time of the deposit contract of this case, was also issued to the intervenor, and the Jeju, which was in charge of verifying actual names at the time of the deposit contract of this case, shall be confirmed as being the money of Kim ○-c, the husband, and the fact that the deposit contract of this case was entered into with the plaintiff as the husband's agent at the time of the deposit contract of this case, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the intervenor was merely a conclusion of the deposit contract of this case

(2) Next, the defendant alleged to the effect that the right to request the return of the deposit of this case was finally reverted to the intervenor as of April 27, 2007 upon the settlement of this case was formed, and thus it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's claim. However, since the seizure of claims based on the disposition on default by the head of a tax office is effective against the delinquent taxpayer's legal or de facto disposition, the defendant, who is the garnishee, cannot pay the seized monetary claims or extinguish the claims, and cannot oppose the plaintiff, who is the execution creditor. As such recognition, the former head of the tax office, as of September 1, 2005, seizes the balance of the deposit claim of this case based on the delinquent tax claim against Kim Fran, and thereafter, the seizure took effect upon the defendant's notice of the seizure of claims, and thereafter, it was recognized that the defendant had the right to request the return of the deposit of this case to the intervenor in the appellate trial process between ○ and the defendant and the intervenor, the defendant cannot claim this part of this case against the plaintiff.

(A) In a case where the person who actually deposits the deposit account holder and the person who actually deposits the deposit account holder are different from each other and actively claims the right to deposit claims, even if a financial institution, which is the debtor, performs its duty of due care as a good manager, taking into account all the circumstances following the formation of the contract and the subsequent circumstances, if it is deemed that there is sufficient room for doubt as to the actual or legal question as to which party is the genuine deposit owner, it is open to the length of avoiding the risk of double payment by making a repayment deposit on the ground of the creditor's uncertainty under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act. However, even though the defendant has already been notified of the seizure disposition as to the deposit claim of this case by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the plaintiff, the defendant is unable to be exempted from liability on the ground that he

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim in this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal in this case is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is accepted.