Whether a credit subject to collection exists and whether a credit subject to collection is liable to pay the collection amount.

The plaintiff's assertion that the third party obligor is liable to pay the collection amount has merit, since there is no evidence to support that the non-existence of the execution claim cannot be asserted as a ground of defense, and that the third party obligor's business right acquisition claim was fully satisfied.

Article 54 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Gohap17318 Collection Money

Korea

AA Corporation

July 10, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,273,708,040 won and 20% interest per annum from August 21, 2013 to the day of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff Company BB

BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "B") is in arrears with the corporate tax of December 31, 2012 and the total amount of value-added tax of KRW 00,000 for the plaintiff.

(b) Claims against the Defendant of BB

1) BB was implementing an O urban development project on August 29, 2007, but the Defendant acquired a business license from BB on August 29, 2007, to pay KRW 0 in return for the transfer and performance of the enforcement right, and KRW 0 in return for the business right on the remaining multi-family housing within three business days from the execution date of each contract, but to manage the amount notified by the Defendant as the third debtor until the contract becomes effective, and the interest related thereto by the method (e.g., Scro account or any similar method) determined by the Defendant.

2) In accordance with the above agreement, the Defendant issued a promissory note of KRW 00 by paying the amount of provisional seizure against the Defendant as the garnishee. On August 30, 2007, the Defendant concluded a bank lending safe management agreement with the attorney Kim Kim ○ and the above promissory note to keep them at the OO branch of an O bank and to manage them at the OO branch of an O bank.

C. Plaintiff’s claim for seizure and collection

1) On March 4, 2013, on the part of the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against BB, the Director notified the Defendant of the attachment of the amount (including the increased additional dues and expenses for disposition on default added thereto) up to the national tax delinquency (including the increased additional dues and expenses for disposition on default added thereto) among the business takeover bonds against B B, with the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against B as the enforcement claim, and the amount in arrears was served on the Defendant on March 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

2) On March 4, 2013, and May 21, 2013, the TBT urged the Defendant to pay the above amount.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including satisfy number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 21, 2013 to the day of complete payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, an execution creditor who subrogated BB pursuant to Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, as the execution creditor, from the date of the instant disposition of seizure, to the day of complete payment.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) Non-existence of enforcement bond

BB transferred business rights to the Plaintiff on the ground that the transfer of BB to the Defendant does not constitute a supply of goods, and the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidity is pending in the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the taxation imposition disposition and the Plaintiff’s winning in the case of BB, and thus the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for collection. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the existence of the enforcement claim cannot be satisfied. However, this assertion is purported to dispute the existence of the enforcement claim, and the third obligor cannot assert the absence of the enforcement claim as a defense. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s claim

2) Determination as to the assertion regarding the absence and scope of the claim to be collected

The defendant asserts that since BB's creditors were provisionally seized in relation to BB's business right's business right's business right's business right's claim, the claims that the plaintiff can collect are extinguished or its scope should be limited.

On the other hand, the procedure of national tax delinquency and civil execution procedure under the current law are separate procedures, and there is no provision in the law regulating the relationship between both procedures, so one procedure cannot interfere with the other procedure, while each creditor in both procedures is bound to participate in the different procedure by the method prescribed in different procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686, May 14, 199). Thus, even if a provisional seizure is made by a creditor of BB, there is no evidence to support that collection by the plaintiff's delinquent procedure was not affected, and that BB's delinquent business right acquisition claim was entirely conducted, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Bolon

Article 6 of the Service Contract and Transfer of Business Rights between BB and the Defendant (i) The time for payment of the agreement under this Agreement shall be paid in a lump sum within three business days from the date of conclusion of the contract, and the amount notified by the Defendant as the garnishee by taking measures, such as provisional seizure of claims against B until the entry into force of this contract, shall be managed by the method (e.g., Escro account or any other similar method) determined by the Defendant regardless of the amount of the attached table under this contract, and the relevant expenses shall be borne by BB. (ii) The amount under paragraph (1) shall be paid immediately by each individual creditor if B requests accompanied by the documents of agreement with the provisional seizure authority and the evidentiary documents of cancellation of provisional seizure: Provided, That if the Defendant considers it necessary, the amount may be deposited to the individual creditor if it is deemed necessary.)

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning and it is so decided as per Disposition.