The defendant shall give priority to the creditor of the third party with respect to the amount within the scope of the effect of prohibition of disposition of seizure as execution creditor.

A creditor against a third acquisitor who has acquired the object of attachment after the attachment shall not participate in the distribution of the amount within the limit of the effect of prohibition of disposition of attachment among the proceeds from the sale of the object of attachment.

2014Return of unjust enrichment by 2014 Ghana171

LAA

O Head of tax office

September 16, 2014

October 7, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 23, 2013 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Non-party 1B was the owner of OO2 O20 O apartment 00 O20 O20,000 (hereinafter only referred to as the real estate in this case) but failed to pay national tax of KRW 000,000. The defendant attached the real estate in this case on May 20, 200 and June 9, 2004. The non-party CC purchased the real estate in this case on May 23, 2008. The above CC concluded the lease contract with Non-party 5, July 18, 201, and this CC mediated the above lease contract. The plaintiff did not understand the legal effect of the above attachment execution, on the ground that the plaintiff did not properly explain the risks of the lease contract in this case, the above DaD paid the above DaD's national tax credit to the above non-party 200,000, and it was acknowledged that the plaintiff did not file a lawsuit against the plaintiff in this case for a small amount of 00,0000,000.

2. The plaintiff, as a tenant of small amount of the above DoD, should have distributed KRW 1/2,00 of the amount distributed to the above DoD pursuant to the provisions of the law, and the defendant distributed the whole amount of the OP book to the above DoD and caused damage equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff. However, in the case where the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the third party's future, the registration of transfer of ownership is made first, within the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of execution preservation due to the effect of prohibition of disposal by provisional seizure, it is relatively invalid in relation to the provisional seizure creditor, to the extent that it is necessary to achieve the purpose of execution preservation. In such case, if the provisional seizure creditor obtained the debt in the name of the execution debtor with the provisional seizure as the execution debtor, the compulsory execution procedure is a compulsory execution procedure against the debtor's property, which is the execution debtor, to the extent that the disposal prohibition of the provisional seizure takes effect, the creditor against the third party purchaser is not entitled to participate in the distribution of the amount of the proceeds of the provisional seizure (see the above O's decision.