Whether there is any justifiable reason to the defendant refusing to comply with the plaintiff's request for collection

The debtor of a claim subject to attachment shall be liable to pay the price of this case (the amount after deducting the amount of the claim and the amount of the electricity charge from the deduction thereof) and damages for delay within the scope of the delinquent amount in arrears to the collection agency upon notification of attachment under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017A. 57462 Collections

Korea

AAAAA

December 19, 2018

January 9, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from O.O. to Jan. 9, 2019 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. BB (hereinafter “BB”) on the basis of the date of O.O.O.O., a company engaged in synthetic resin processing business (hereinafter “BB”) failed to pay a total of x, x, x, x, and xx (including additional dues) including value-added tax, corporate tax, wage and salary tax, retirement income tax, etc. attributed from 2013 to 2017, as shown in the attached national tax delinquent table.

B. The Defendant purchased materials from BB from O.O. on to BB to make another day, and BB from O.O. on toO. 2017, the Defendant issued tax invoices (for filing a claim) as listed below, and claimed the Defendant to pay the price (hereinafter referred to as “the price in this case”). From O.O. to O. 2016, BB issued tax invoices (for filing a claim) and claimed for the payment thereof (hereinafter referred to as “the price in this case”).

C. At the time of O.O. BBB under the National Tax Collection Act, the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff attached “BBBB’s credit (including credit to be incurred previously) against the Defendant (including credit to be incurred)” to execute the amount of national tax in arrears until O.O. BBB reaches the notice of the above seizure to the Defendant, who is the garnishee, andO.O.O.O.O. notice was issued on 2016,O.O.O.O. notice on 2017.O.O. BB’s national tax, and for the enforcement of the unpaid amount of national tax in arrears and the additionally accrued amount of national tax in arrears, “BBB” additionally attached to “BB’s sales credit (including credit to be incurred previously) against the Defendant,” and onO.O. notice of seizure to the Defendant on 2017,O.O.O. notice of the attachment to the Defendant and received the notice on O.O.O.O.O.O.

D. The plaintiff demanded the payment of the amount equivalent to the amount of delinquent local taxes seized as stated in the above (c), but the defendant did not comply with it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant was notified by the Plaintiff on October 1, 2016 and OO.O.O. 2017 that X was seized, the Defendant did not pay xx, xx, and xxx in the aggregate of the national taxes in arrears by BB to the Plaintiff, the collection right holder, upon receiving the notification that X was seized on the sales claims of BB from the Plaintiff on January 2, 2016. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the sales claims against the Defendant of BB, x, x, x, xx, and any delay compensation therefor (the Plaintiff is on the premise that the sum of the sales claims of 1.b above is x, x, and x, but the sum actually is x, x, xx).

3. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Relevant legal principles

In cases where a claim is seized by a State in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the obligor of the seized claim cannot perform his/her obligation to the obligee. Meanwhile, in cases where the State is subrogated to the obligee by notifying the obligor of the attachment pursuant to Article 41(2) of the same Act, the State shall be deemed to have acquired the right to collect the claim. Thus, when the due date has arrived, the obligor of the seized claim shall be liable to perform it to the State which is the subrogated obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2476, Apr. 12, 198; 2004Da24960, Dec. 21, 2006).

2) Determination

According to the above facts, under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff who became the collection authority upon the notification of seizure onO.O.O., 2016 to the sum of the proceeds of this case xx,xx,xxx, and delay damages therefor within the scope of the delinquent amount of BB.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

1) Claim for reimbursement to BB

A) Defendant’s assertion

From October 2015, the Defendant began to purchase materials to create other dates from BB from the date of O.O.x,xx,x,xx,xx, O.O.x,xx,xx,xx, O.O.x,xx,xx,xx,O. Box, 2016, O.O.x,x,x,x,x,xx, xx, 2016,O.S.O.x,x,x,x,x,x,x, 2016,O.x, O.x,x,x, x, x, x, x, 201, O.O.x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, O.x, O.x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x in relation to the foregoing provision. On the other hand, the Defendant already paid part of the tax invoice that was issued.

B) Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entry and pleadings of Category Bxx, the above payment is recognized as having been made to BB from the date ofO.O. to the date ofO.O., 2016, the sum ofx,x,x, andxx over time as follows. However, among the Defendant’s payment, the sequenceX or X was made before the date of issuance of the tax invoice onO. Box, 2015, which was issued to the Defendant, and the Defendant had made payment of the goodsxx,xx,xx, xxx, xx, xx that was alleged to have been made in advance to BBxx, xxxx, xx that was alleged to have been made for the payment of the goodsx, xxx orx, xx, xx, xx orx, x, xx, xx, x or other, ＋, ＋ of the Defendant’s claim:

(2) Meanwhile, among the goods-price obligations that the Defendant is obliged to pay to BB, the sum of the sum of the x,x, andx that the Plaintiff seeks to pay for the collection of the amount to be collected is recognized through the Defendant’s entry and pleadings, and the sum of the x,x,x, andxx that was issued on October 2015, and the sum of the x,x,x, andxx that was issued on October 1, 2015, and the sum of the goods-price tax invoices that amount to the x,x,x,x, andxx that were included in the x,x,x, and tax invoice (x,x,x, x, x, x, x) that were included in the x,x,x,x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, 200 or more of the above goods-price’s respective debt-price obligations, 20 or more of the Defendant’s respective obligations are set out.

(3) According to the order of appropriation as above, it is clear in light of the above, it is clear that the defendant's payment amount of X,x, andxx is not remaining when the sum of the tax invoices issued on O.O.O. andO.O.O. onO. of 2015 is appropriated for the obligations of X,x, andxx. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's payment amount as listed below is the repayment of the instant payment. The defendant's assertion on repayment is without merit.

2) Claim for reimbursement to BB Representative CCC

A) Defendant’s assertion

The defendant paid part of the price in this case as the passbook in the name of BB representative CCC. x,x,x, andxx in total.

B) Determination

In full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the Defendant is recognized as having paid KRW x,xx, andxx in the name of the passbook in the name of CCC fromO.O.O. to O.O. of the same month. However, BBB and its representative CCC cannot be recognized as having paid the Defendant’s payment to BBB due to a separate legal entity, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the aforementioned remittance to CCC was paid as the payment of the instant amount. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) BB’s assertion on the repayment of debt to DD Co., Ltd.

A) Defendant’s assertion

On October 2016, the Defendant paid the DNA (hereinafter referred to as the "DDD") to the DDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "DDDD"), thereby repaying the debt to BB's DD and repaying part of the price of the instant case.

B) Determination

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in Nos. 7 and 8, the Defendant’s payment of KRW x,xx, andxx in lieu of BBB’s debt to DD on October 2016 and O.O.DD on October 2016, and the fact that the Defendant partly repaid the instant payment. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is with merit.

(iv) the claimant for the payment of electricity charges by BB;

A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant received a request from CCC to pay the electricity fee of BB on the behalf of the BB, and paid the electricity fee of O.O. on the behalf of BB on the pretext of partial payment of the price of the instant case, instead of the x,xx, andxxx.

B) Determination

In full view of the purport of the statement and arguments in Eul evidence No. 6, the fact that the defendant paid the above electrical charges as above is insufficient to recognize that the above electrical charges are the electrical charges in BB, or that the defendant paid the above electrical charges as the repayment of part of the price in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

5) Claim for settlement agreement with CCC

A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant, upon receipt of the proposal that “BB will settle part of the price of the instant case in return for the extension of the business by expanding the business to be entrusted with the performance of the contract on part of the transaction parties of BB by leasing the building of BB from the CCC, and accepted the proposal, and subsequently leased and used the building of BB from the O on the date of OO on 2016, thereby causing loss to the Defendant. Thereafter, the Defendant agreed to settle the damage x,x, andxx from the date of the request by CCC and BBB on O.O. CB on 2016 to divide the damage x,x, andxx from the price of the instant case into part of the price of the instant case, the x,x, andxxx from the price of the instant case were extinguished by settlement between the Defendant and CCC.

B) Determination

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant and CCC agreed to settle part of the instant payment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

6) Claim as to the tax invoice issued by BB afterO. 2016

A) Defendant’s assertion

Upon receipt of the proposal as above 5.A from the CCC, the Defendant leased and used the building BB BB from the O.O. 2016, and was issued after O.O. 2016 a tax invoice on the rent for BB factories and the electricity fee therefor. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that was based on the tax invoice issued after O. 2016, issued by BB to the Defendant after O. 2016, is without merit, since the tax invoice (the above No. 1. B. No. 1. 1. B.x,xx,xxxxx + No. 1. B.xx,xxxxxxxx,xxxxxx, and factory rent, other than the goods, as the above tax invoice was issued after O. 2016.

B) Determination

(1) The portion of the rent that BB has against the Defendant

(A) From among the tax invoices under the above 1.b., those issued afterO. 2016 among the tax invoices issued by BB to the Defendant by BB, fall under the tax invoices issued onO.O. O. (S. X No.) and O.O. 2017 andO.O. O. 2017, and the tax invoices issued onO. O. 2017. The Defendant recognized that the portion of the amount stated in the above tax invoices is to be paid as factory site rent for BB as to the Defendant, and this is included in the scope of attachment against the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above rent to the Plaintiff as the execution creditor.

(B) Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entries and arguments by the Defendant on the amount of rent that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant agreed to rent BB’s factory site from O.O. to O.O., 2016 to BO.O., without a deposit. According to the above lease agreement, the rent for the Defendant of BBB at the time of issuing the tax invoice of O.O.O., 2017, for the sum of the rent for the Defendant x,x,x,x,xxxxxxx (i.e., monthly,xx,xxxxxxx (i.e., month) x, xxxxxx xx x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2017 O.

(2) The portion of the electricity fee that the Defendant pays to the Korea Electric Power Corporation instead of BBBB

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entries and arguments regarding the above BBxx in the name of the defendant and BB, the part on which the defendant and BB agreed to lease the factory site of BB to x, x, and all the electricity charges incurred to BB, 2016 stated as the "electric charges" on the "product column of the tax invoice issued onO.O.O., and 2017.O.x., 3Bxx, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 20, 200, 200, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, x2, x0, x0, 2, 20, 20, 200, 20

(B) Meanwhile, the Defendant appears to have claimed that the obligations of x, xx, and xxx members are also included in the electricity rates, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above tax invoice was related to the electricity rates only with the evidence submitted by the Defendant, such as the absence of an indication that the obligations of x, x, and xx members are related to the electricity rates, unlike the tax invoice issued on October 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above tax invoice was related to the electricity rates. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of x, x, x, and xx (=x, x, x, x, xx, x, the amount of the tax invoice that BB issued by the defendant to the plaintiff to the plaintiff x, x, x, x, x, x, and the amount of the tax invoice to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff x, x, x, x, the amount of the electricity fee to be paid by the defendant - x, x, x, x, which is the day following the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case after the collection order in this case was served, as requested by the plaintiff, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case until January 9, 2019, and 20% per annum from the next day until the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.