Seoul East Eastern District Court-2018-Ban-117990 ( October 12, 2018)

The claim for the recovery of the deposit of this case constitutes the exercise of the security interest of the deposited party.

The dividends of this case distributed to the defendant Republic of Korea, which seized the right to claim payment of deposit money of the person to whom the deposit was made, as long as the secured claim has been made as the secured claim as the secured claim was executed at the court of first instance.

2018Nu29537 Demurrer against distribution

AA

Republic of Korea 1

November 24, 2019

July 5, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Among the dividend table prepared by the above court on May 15, 2018 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Seoul Eastern District Court 2018 Taooo District Court 2018, the dividend amountxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in relation to the defendant's Republic of Korea (aa under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea), to the plaintiff, shall be changed toxx.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows: "No seizure is possible" under Section 9 of Part 9 of the first instance court's decision, "No seizure is possible"; "lowly" under Section 7 of Part 5 is "affirmative"; "free and free of charge" under Section 5 shall be "Invalidity"; and the argument added by the plaintiff is identical to the reasons for the first instance court's decision, except for the following determination as to the assertion added by this court. Thus, it shall be cited under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that it was wrong to distribute dividends to the Defendants on the premise that the dividend court did not exist as to the Plaintiff. According to the respective entries and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3-1, 3-2, and the whole purport of pleadings, the Defendants’ claim for local income tax in 2012 against the Plaintiff of Defendant BB at the time of seizing the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of deposit, payment, or payment of deposit money, the amount of global income tax in 2013 against the Plaintiff of the Republic of Korea (Disposition Office Aa), xx, and transfer income tax claim in 2013 (xxx (=xxx +xx) was imposed on the Plaintiff of the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no reason to impose transfer income tax on the Plaintiff of the Republic of Korea, which was revoked on the Plaintiff’s global income tax claim in 1, 201, and that there was no reason to recognize that there was no ground to impose transfer income tax on the Plaintiff COx21, supra.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit