It is true that the State acquires the right to collect the seized claim when the seizure takes effect.

Where a seizure by the disposition on default takes effect on the basis of a tax claim finalized under the National Tax Collection Act, if the State acquires the right to collect the seized claim when the seizure takes effect, and claims are seized due to the default of national taxes, the creditors or pledgees of the defaulted taxpayer shall lose the right to file a lawsuit seeking the payment of the seized claims

2013Gaz. 50321 Prohibition of Seizure

Korea

AAAA lecture conference

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

April 4, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from January 30, 2013 to the date of this judgment and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings: Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of tax claims;

(a) Status of parties;

The plaintiff is a person who has the claim of value-added tax of KRW 200 for the non-party BB General Construction Company, and the defendant's Association of the Korea Coast Guard is a church organization that has the claim for the payment of the construction cost to the non-party BB General Construction Company.

B. Establishment of preserved claims

The plaintiff's taxation claims are as follows:

(The following table omitted):

2. Seizure and peremptory notice;

A. Nonparty BB General Construction Co., Ltd. provides construction services to the Defendant, and thereby, according to the electronic tax invoice prepared on October 31, 2012, Nonparty BB General Construction Co., Ltd. has sales claim amounting to KRW 000 (see Evidence A2).

B. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a notice of claim seizure on November 13, 2012 for the purpose of securing the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act due to Nonparty BB comprehensive Construction Company’s default of national taxes, and confirmed that he received the same on November 15, 2012 by employees KimD (1 to 2 referring to the evidence No. 3).

C. After all, on November 23, 2012 due to the change in the amount of claims of the Plaintiff, the Defendant visited the AAD Diplomatic Association to verify that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the amount of seizure, and further attachment of the claims, and the payment has been requested until November 28, 2012, but has not been paid up to now. (3 to 4 References in evidence 3-2)

3. Grounds for the plaintiff's request;

A. Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the State shall subrogate the obligee within the limit of the amount of taxation claims, and Article 45(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the third obligor, each of whom was seized, shall file a lawsuit via a peremptory notice when the third obligor, each of whom was seized, fails to perform

B. In cases where a seizure based on a tax claim finalized under the National Tax Collection Act takes effect, the State acquires the right to collect the seized claim when the seizure takes effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da2886, Jun. 24, 1994). In cases where a claim in arrears is seized due to a national tax in arrears, the obligee or pledgee of the delinquent taxpayer loses the right to file a lawsuit seeking payment of the seized claim and pay it to the tax official solely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2931, Oct.

4. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the defendant did not pay the seizure money to the director of the plaintiff Marine Tax Office without any justifiable reason, which led to the lawsuit of this case in order to secure national tax claims by provisionally seizing the attached list 1, the attached list 2, and the deposit claims.