Participation in attachment or request for delivery, made after seizure under the Civil Execution Act, shall have the same effect as all of them, regardless of their time.

Participation in attachment or request for delivery, made after seizure under the Civil Execution Act, shall have the same effect as all of them, regardless of their time.

Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Confirmation of claims for payment of deposit money 205420

】 Group

Korea

on October 2016 20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on October 30, 2013 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Daegu District Court 2013Tagro1895, the dividend amount of KRW 133,802,99 against the defendant shall be corrected to KRW 0, and KRW 66,265,719 to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 200,068,718, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 6, 2012 】 3. The Plaintiff: (a) received tax claims of KRW 50 x 694,640 for each of the 20-year dividends x 30-year dividends x 20-year dividends x 30 x 258,920 won for each of the instant public projects x 30-year dividends x 250 x 36 x 27 x 27 x 36 x 27 x 27 x 30-year dividends , each of the instant public projects excluding dividends ; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the seizure order issued by the Defendant on June 1, 2012.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff seized the instant dividend claim from among the tax creditors, it shall be distributed to the Defendant, who is the right holder of priority than the Defendant, who is the right holder of other tax claims, in accordance with the principle of priority prior to seizure under Article 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 101(2) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes. As such, the instant dividend table should

2) The defendant's assertion

As to the dividend claim of this case, first of all of the plaintiff's seizure, the seizure and collection order was served on the third debtor, and the compulsory execution procedure under the Civil Execution Act has already been commenced, the plaintiff's seizure and the defendant's seizure are equally effective regardless of time, and therefore, the distribution schedule of this case distributed according to the ratio of the amount of respective tax claims of the plaintiff and the defendant is justified.

B. Determination

1) Article 147 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that Article 147 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the scope of the validity of the Plaintiff’s attachment disposition on dividend claim of this case except as otherwise provided for in the Framework Act on Local Taxes or local tax-related Acts, and Article 56 and Article 14(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that where a taxpayer is subject to compulsory execution by the executing court, etc., the head of a tax office shall request the relevant government agency, public organization, execution court, etc. to deliver the amount of delinquent taxes. Article 57(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "if a taxpayer is already subject to attachment by another agency, the head of a tax office may participate in the attachment by delivering a notice of participation in attachment to the agency which already attached the property in lieu of a request for delivery under Article 56." According to the above provision, if a debtor’s third party debtor who is the taxpayer’s property in a disposition on default of national taxes or local taxes has already requested the attachment or tax claim.

2) As to the lawfulness of the instant dividends

Considering that the purpose of the first priority of seizure under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Framework Act on Local Taxes is to grant priority to the relevant tax claims that have contributed to preventing the debtor from getting away or losing the debtor's responsible property due to seizure, if there is a seizure based on any taxation claim prior to commencement of compulsory execution under the Civil Execution Act, and thereafter there is a further request for participation or delivery of the debtor's property, a taxation claim related to seizure should take precedence over the seizure made first regardless of whether the distribution procedure is made by the tax collection office or by the distribution court under the Civil Execution Act in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act. However, if the compulsory execution procedure under the Civil Execution Act has already started before the seizure of the debtor's property based on the tax claim and there is a request for participation or delivery by the tax collection office after the commencement of the compulsory execution procedure under the National Tax Collection Act (if the tax collection office seizes the debtor's property, it does not have the effect only of a new debtor's request for delivery or participation under the same as seen earlier).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, as to the instant case, the Minister of Health and Welfare issued a seizure and collection order as to the instant dividend claim 】 (b) the Daegu District Court 2012TTTTTTT 8837, Jun. 21, 2012; and thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order as to the instant case on August 6, 2012; and thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order as seen earlier on Oct. 18, 2012 and on Mar. 20, 2013, as long as the seizure and collection order was already issued after the compulsory execution procedure under the Civil Execution Act had already commenced, the Plaintiff’s seizure and the Defendant’s seizure have the same effect regardless of time and time after the commencement of the compulsory execution procedure under the Civil Execution Act. Accordingly, it is justifiable to determine both the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s respective tax claims in the same order, and prepare the instant distribution schedule in proportion to the amount of claims.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the plaintiff's taxation claim priority over the defendant's taxation claim, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.