It is sufficient to distinguish the claims from other claims, and the attachment disposition without demand shall not be a significant and obvious defect.

Although a claim subject to seizure should be specified, the specific degree is sufficient to the extent that it can be distinguished from other claims, and even if a seizure disposition was conducted without demanding procedures, such reasons alone do not constitute a significant and obvious defect that makes the seizure disposition null and void.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Single 117919 Demurrer against distribution

The plaintiff, a creditor of substitute payment, has priority to pay the total amount of the claim.

A dividend amount of 709,689 won and a dividend amount for defendantOO in the distribution schedule.

00 won shall be deleted, and the same amount shall be added to the amount of the plaintiff's dividends.

00 won shall be corrected to 000 won.

4. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of the distribution schedule against the remaining Defendants

A. Judgment on the invalidity of the assignment of claims against the effect of prohibition of disposition of seizure and provisional seizure

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The claim in this case by the OOO, the non-party OO, the OO, and the OO

Defendant OO, OO, or the Republic of Korea (OOO) prior to the transfer of this case’s claim

enforcement of the attachment or provisional attachment in respect of which the total amount of the enforcement claims was 000 won.

Since the claim amount of this case exceeds the claim amount of this case, the above assignment of claim is null and void against the effect of prohibition of seizure.

C. Therefore, all seizures and provisional seizures before and after the assignment of claims of this case are distributed to the creditor.

The plaintiff's right to substitute payment has priority over the plaintiff's right to substitute payment, so the total amount of the claim is double to the plaintiff.

The amount of dividends against the defendants should be reduced as stated in the primary purport of the claim.

(2) Determination

The effect of the prohibition of the disposition by the debtor is not absolute, but is not absolute; or

of the third party debtor's performance and taking part in the execution procedure before such disposition or performance

Inasmuch as the claimant cannot set up a defense against the claimant, the claimant has a relative effect only; and

(1) If the debtor has been disposed of or discharged by the third party prior to the entry into force of the chapter,

such disposition, even if there is a low-end creditor, which cannot be set up against the creditor, if any.

any creditor who has received a seizure order after payment shall be subject to a valid disposition or performance (other than the debtor).

Court Decision 2001Da10748 delivered on May 30, 2003, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748

Requirements for setting up against the transfer of claims by notification, etc. with a fixed date after transferring the claims subject to seizure.

subject to seizure or pressure by another creditor of the debtor on the subject-matter of the

Even in cases of seizure or provisional seizure, the claims subject to seizure are not existing at the time of such seizure or provisional seizure.

(h) there is no effect as a seizure or provisional seizure, and therefore other creditors are subject to seizure, etc.

No participation may be made in the proceeding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da57213, Oct. 28, 2010).

As to this case, the provisional seizure of the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be subject to OO

JOO, non-partyO,OO, andOO after transferring the claim in this case.

As such, the number of creditors who have been first attached by the assignment of the OO may set up against the obligee.

Even if there is no such transfer, the transfer will be effective for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the transfer of the OO's claims shall be effective.

We accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the Do cannot set up against the plaintiff.

subsection (b).

B. Determination as to the non-existence of a claim subject to transfer

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

A claim that is transferred by the OO to the OO or the OO shall be transferred by the OO.

‘The claim for the purchase price of the goods' is marked as ‘the claim for the purchase price of the goods', and the OO

The claim of this case, which is only a claim for construction cost, is held by OO or OO. Therefore,

The distribution schedule under the premise that the claim was acquired shall be corrected as stated in the primary purport of the claim.

(2) and (3).

(2) Determination

(1) If the assigned claim is distinguished from another claim under generally accepted social norms, such distinction shall apply to the assignment of claims.

If the claim is sufficient to recognize the nature of the claim, the claim shall be deemed to be specified.

C. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da5110, May 29, 1998).

In this case, the distinction between the health account, the "goods price" and the "construction price" is clear.

The plaintiff's assertion that it is difficult, even if based on the plaintiff's assertion, the OO at the time of the transfer of the claim of this case

the claim in this case is deemed not to have been claims in addition to the claim in this case

In this regard, a claim indicated as a claim subject to the assignment contract and the notice of assignment of claim;

In light of social norms, it should be deemed that the claim of this case is raised.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

C. Determination on the assertion that the notification of assignment of claims is invalid

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Notice of transfer of claims to OOO and OO shall be given to the transferor of the claim.

As there is no OO, there is only OO and OO as the assignee of the claim, and as such, the above

The notification of the assignment of claims shall not be effective. Accordingly, the notification of the assignment of claims cannot be set up against the plaintiff.

As such, the notification of the assignment of claims is premised on the fact that the notification can be set up against the plaintiff.

A distribution schedule shall be revised in the same manner as the primary purport of the claim.

(2) Determination

In this regard, notice of assignment of claims pursuant to the provisions of Article 450 of the Civil Act shall not be directly performed by the transferor.

(1) If the Corporation is authorized to do so through a private person or by proxy, and the transferee of the claim shall also be

The power of giving notice of the assignment of claims from the Do person may be delegated to the Do person and give such notice to the agent.

See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da43490 Decided February 13, 2004, etc.

Each entry in evidence No. 6-9, 6-11 in respect of this case shall constitute a whole purport of the pleading.

under section 26(1) of this title, the notice of assignment of claims by the OO or by the OOO

Since the above notice of assignment of claims is valid, the plaintiff's objection is valid.

Sectoral argument cannot be accepted.

D. Determination as to the assertion of violation of a special agreement prohibiting transfer

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

There is a special agreement between the OO and theO on the prohibition of transfer of the claim of this case.

Go, the assignee of the credit (Defendant OO, Nonparty OO, OO,OO, andOO) was aware of it, and thus, the transferee of the credit was aware of it:

The above assignment of claims is null and void. Accordingly, the distribution schedule of this case is corrected as the primary purport of the claim.

(2) and (3).

(2) Determination

There is no evidence that the assignee of the above claim knew of the non-transfer-prohibited special agreement.

No claim filed by the plaintiff for dismissal shall be accepted.

E. Judgment on the invalidity of provisional seizure against Defendant OO’s claim

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

This distribution schedule under the premise that a claim has been provisionally seized is in the same manner as the primary claim

must be determined.

(2) Determination

The claims to be seized in the provisional seizure against claims should be specified, and the degree of the specific

to the extent that such claim may be distinguished from any other claim does not require full and complete specification.

C. Therefore, the indication of the claim that is the object of provisional seizure of claim has been made to the interested parties, especially the third obligor

section 10(b)(3)(3)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)

In cases where the provisional seizure against the claim is valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2010 decided April 28, 2010).

Da89036 see Supreme Court Decision 89036

With respect to this case, the SeoulOO District Court Decision 20 XXKadan3626 Decided provisional seizure of claims (creditors)

OO, OOO, 3 debtorO) have interest in claims subject to provisional seizure.

The term "price for goods" and "the price for goods" expressed by the United Nations as "the price for goods" and "the price for goods".

It is difficult to say that the distinction between the gold is clear, and at the time of the provisional seizure of the claim by Defendant OOO

A claim held by Jina ZO was not subject to the claim in this case.

In light of the fact that the claim indicated as the object of provisional seizure is seen as shown above.

It is recognized that OOO, in particular the third debtor, is a claim in this case, separate from other claims.

It seems that it does not reach the degree of undermining the recognition of identity as much as possible.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

F. Determination on the assertion on invalidation of the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, seizure of the instant claim by Defendant Republic of Korea is null and void:

The distribution schedule of this case, primarily on the premise that the seizure of claims by Defendant Republic of Korea is valid, shall be corrected.

and, in the event that the rectification of the distribution schedule is not allowed, the number received by the Defendant Republic of Korea.

party shall return the gold to the plaintiff.

1. For seizure of claims by OO under the defendant's Republic of Korea

section 35(O) of the title of this title, only that the third party debtor (OO) is liable to pay to the delinquent taxpayer(OO)

The claims subject to Chapter 1 were not specified.

(2) The amount of tax on the notice of value-added tax for 20 XX X-value added tax against OO.

34,790,370 won was stated in the demand note, and the payment period was 00 won was stated in the demand note.

Since the notice and demand note are different from each other, there is a defect in the demand procedure.

(3) A notice of value-added tax on OO shall be served on OO for 20 XX years X-value added tax.

The transmission by public notice is not made even if Article 1 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not apply.

The month was the month.

4. Notice of Value-Added Tax for 20 XX X organ, demand notice for 20 XX X organ, and 20 XX X organ.

It can not be confirmed that a person who receives a demand notice of the value-added tax is an employee of the OO.

(2) Determination

(A) Determination on the unspecified assertion of seizure subject

The claim subject to the seizure should be specified, but the degree of the specific degree should be specified.

It would be sufficient to distinguish between other claims.

As to this case, the Health Board and the OOO head of the U.S. O. head of the U.S. office under the

"National taxes in arrears" among the debts that OO shall pay to OO for a delinquent taxpayer.

The notice of seizure was given by OO at the time of the seizure.

It appears that the claim held against BB was not in addition to the claim in this case, and in fact,

As seen earlier, it is deemed that the attachment by the director of the OO is the instant claim.

In light of the fact that mixed deposits have been made, the interests of the claims indicated in the above seizure.

In particular, OOO, the third debtor, is separate from other claims, so it can be recognized as the claim in this case.

It seems that it does not reach the degree of undermining the recognition of identity.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

(B) Determination on the defective assertion of demand procedure

B In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entry of evidence No. 7, the OO

Value-added Tax for the first period of 2010 shall be deferred, and it shall be written in a notice and demand notice.

such notice and demand is lawful and written in a notice, as it appears that the amount of tax would vary.

There is a defect in the demand procedure only if the amount does not coincide with the amount stated in the demand note.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, if the taxpayer fails to pay the tax by the due date, the tax office shall collect the tax.

(2) If a seizure disposition is taken without a demand procedure, the seizure disposition is taken, even if it is made without demand procedure.

sole reason that the attachment disposition is not a significant and apparent defect in the invalidation of the attachment disposition.

C. (See Supreme Court Decision 87Nu383, Sept. 22, 1987)

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

(C) Determination on the illegality of service by public notice

A notice of value-added tax on OO 20 XX X-value added tax shall be given to the OO.

As a registered mail was sent to the location of the head office on the personal register, it was returned to the addressee's unknown address.

D. Service was made by service by public notice, and service was made by service under Article 11(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

If there is no place to be served by the person, it shall be served by registered mail, but

The above service by public notice is legitimate because it falls under "the case sent".

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

On the other hand, even if a notice of tax payment for the reported method of tax payment was issued, the notice is issued.

It is not merely a disposition of collection ordering the performance of the duty to pay value-added tax which has already been determined.

Ga. Even if there is a defect in the delivery procedure of the notice for the payment of value-added tax, special circumstances

However, the attachment disposition cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

(D) Determination as to the assertion of receipt of documents by a non-employee

OOOtax officials of OO in the notice of value-added tax for 20 XX X term portion for OO

service of a demand notice to the OO by each delivery to the staff OO;

Recognizing facts, service of notice and demand notice for 20 XX X-year period is legitimate.

However, the non-party OO receives a demand notice for value-added tax for 20 XX X period portion from the OO

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the OO was delegated to receive the authority from the OO.

Therefore, the above service is unlawful, however, the notice of value-added tax on OO; and

Even if there are some defects in the delivery procedure of a demand notice, the attachment disposition is taken solely on such grounds.

shall not be null and void.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

5. Conclusion

If so, each claim against Defendant OO or OO is justified by the plaintiff.

such claims against the Defendant, the Republic of Korea, the OO, the OO, and the OO are without merit.

The dismissal is dismissed.

OOO

Republic of Korea 5

Amount of 000 won for OO shall be corrected to 00 won each.

Preliminary Claim: Defendant Republic of Korea 00 won and this case 20 XX for the Plaintiff.

X. pay 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the preparatory documents to the day of complete payment.

OO, OOO of the debtor, OO of the third debtor, 000 won claimed, and 20 XX. X. of the third debtor.

8. Provisional seizure against claims (P district court 20 XX car group): The creditor's OO, the debtor's OO, and the debtor's OO

OO of the third debtor, the claimed amount of KRW 65,50,000, and the service date for the third debtor 20 XX. X.X.

9. Transfer of claims (transfer date 20 XX. 5. 16.): transferee non-party OO corporation (hereinafter referred to as "OO")

Transfer OO, OO of the third debtor, transfer amount of KRW 3,087,660, and date of notice of transfer 20 XX. X. XX.

(10) Provisional seizure against claims (SeoulOO District Court 20 XX car group): The creditor, defendant OO

(hereinafter referred to as "DefendantOO"), debtorO, third debtorO, claim amount

00 won and delivery date for the third debtor 20 XX. X. XX.

11. Transfer (transfer date 20 XX. X.) : transferee non-party O (hereinafter referred to as "O") corporation;

transferor OO, OO of the third debtor, 000 won of transfer, and 20 XX. X. XX.

(12) The seizure and collection order of the provisional seizure to be transferred to the provisional seizure (O district court 20 XXT)

Market - The above GATT District Court - the transfer of the provisional seizure against the claim to the seizure: the defendant

OO, OOO of the debtor, OO of the third debtor, 000 won for claims, and 20 XX. X.

(13) Provisional seizure against the claims (Seoul Central District Court 20 XXKadan49585): Creditors C&Wn SAW dynasene

The delivery date for the third debtor, corporation, OOO, OO, 000 won of claim, and 20 XX. 4.

(14) Provisional seizure against claims (OO district court OO branch court 20 XXcar group 2656): Creditors OOO, debtor interested children

20 XX. X. X. on the date of service to the third obligor, the third obligor OO, the claimed amount of 000, and the third obligor.

(15) Provisional seizure against claims (Seoul OOO District Court 20 XXS), the creditor, the debtor'sO, and the third debtor

OO, OOO, and 3 debtors on service date 20 XX. X. X.

Provisional Seizure (Seoul OOO District Court 20 XXS) : Creditor Linked Linked LLC

OOO, OO of the third debtor, claim amount of KRW 14,509,085, and date of delivery to the third debtor 20 XX. X. X.

The seizure and collection order (O district court 20 XXTT) to be transferred to the provisional seizure

XX7 - The above XX District Court 20 XX car group's provisional seizure of claims against the Defendant: the Defendant

OO, OOO of the debtor, OO of the third debtor, 00 won of the claim, and 20 XX. X. of the third debtor.

B. A provisional attachment, seizure, collection order, and collection order with respect to the claims against the OO's OO;

When transfers, etc. compete, the OO is under 20 XX. X. X. Seoul OO District Court 20 XX heading XX.

OO or the defendant OO or the non-party who is the assignee of the claim, who is the transferor of the claim

Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act provides that "OOO or non-party OOO", and Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act provides that "OO or non-partyO"

The paragraph 1 of Article 487 of the Civil Code, and the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code mixed deposit of KRW 000 for the OO's obligations.

C. The distribution of dividends under the Seoul OO District Court 20 XXTzzho, which was commenced by the OO’s above deposit

In the procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution procedure”) the above court shall pay 000 won to be actually distributed.

After the following courses, the amount of 00 won (substitute payment for overdue wages) to the plaintiff

B. 00 won: 00 won to the Head of the District Tax Office under the defendant's Republic of Korea, and 200 won

OOO에게 채권금액 000원 중 000원을, ㉣ OOO에게 채권금액 000원 중

00 won, 000 won out of the amount of credit 000 won to Defendant OO, and the amount of credit to Defendant OO.

Of 000, each distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") was prepared to distribute 000 won.

(4) The amount equivalent to 00 won in total of the assignment of claims 1, 200 won in advance.

(3) The dividends shall be distributed among creditors in proportion to their distribution, and the dividends shall be paid preferentially to claims falling under paragraph (3) with priority.

(2) The dividends to creditors in proportion to each other.

(9) The amount equivalent to 3,087,660 won, which is the amount of assignment of claims, shall be prior to one another, (1), (2), (3), (6)

(7) The distribution of dividends to each of the creditors in proportion to the remaining amount of claims after deducting the above dividends.

(11) The amount equivalent to 14,00,000 won, which is the amount of assignment of claims, shall be prior to the latter.

(7) Distribution in proportion to the remaining amount of claims after deducting the above dividends from each of the creditors, (8), and (0)

dividend; and

Amount of KRW 51,775,589 = 143,863,249 = - (75,000,000) of the remainder of the actual dividends

(1) Won + 3,087,660 won + 14,00,00 won + (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (10), (10), (2), (3), (4), and (15)

each of the creditors (other than the assignees) shall be distributed in proportion to all of the creditors, and the priority shall be given

the Plaintiff’s preferential dividend

D. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared in the Republic of Korea on the date of distribution of the instant distribution procedure and appeared in the Republic of Korea.

00 won out of the amount of dividends payable to Defendant OO, OO, OO, OO, OO, and OO.

Each objection was raised to the total amount of each dividend amount.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6

Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act against Defendant OO

(a) Indication of claims: OO, a debt excess condition, is 20 XX. X. XX. obligees;

As such, since the assignment of the instant claim to Defendant OO was made, the said assignment of claim would prejudice the fraudulent act.

that such cancellation must be made.

(b) Grounds: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for revision of the distribution schedule against Defendant OO orOO

A. The plaintiff's assertion

There is a special agreement between the OO and the OO on the prohibition of assignment of the instant claim;

As the assignee of the claim (Defendant OO, Nonparty OO, OO, andOO) was aware of this, the above fact was known.

The assignment of claims is null and void in all. Accordingly, the instant distribution schedule is revised as stated in the primary purport of the claim.

required by the corporation.

B. Determination

OO orOO's assertion pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

Defendant OOO, Nonparty OO, OOO, and the trustee’s order to terminate the contract.

Since each assignment of claims against theel is null and void, this is between the Plaintiff and Defendant OO and OOO.

The subject of the provisional seizure order against OO shall be the subject of the provisional seizure order by the OO to the OO.

Defendant OO is not a claim of this case, which is not only the “price for goods,” but also the “cost for construction.”

October 8, 2014

November 19, 2014

1. Revocation of the assignment of claims concluded between Defendant OOO and Nonparty OOO Co., Ltd. (Seoul OOOO-X, X, representative internal director).

2. 서울OO지방법원 XXXX타기XXX 배당절차에 관하여 위 법원이 XXXX. X. XX. 작성한 배당표 중 피고 OOO에 대한 배당액 000원, 피고 OOO에 대한 배당액 00000원을 각 삭제하고, 원고에 대한 배당액 0000원을 0000원으로 경정한다. 3. 원고의 피고 대한민국, OOO 주식회사, OOO, 주식회사 OOO에 대한 각 청구를 기각한다. 4. 소송비용 중 원고와 피고 OOO, OOO 사이에 생긴 부분은 피고 OOO, OOO이, 원고와 피고 대한민국, OOO 주식회사, OOO, 주식회사 OOO 사이에 생긴 부분은 원고가 각 부담한다.

In relation to the distribution procedure for the Gu office's branch and main office's claim: Paragraph 1 of the order and the SeoulOO District Court's branch's set-up of the dividend for the plaintiff's 20 XX X. X., 000 won for the dividend amount for the defendant's Republic of Korea (OO head of the tax office), 000 won for the defendant's OOO corporation, 000 won for the dividend amount for the defendant's OOO corporation, 00 won for the dividend amount for the defendant's OOO, 00 won for the dividend amount, 00 won for the defendant's OOO, and 00 won for the dividend amount for the defendant's OOO.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the claim for construction cost of KRW 000 against OO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "OO") (hereinafter referred to as "the claim in this case"), provisional attachment, seizure, collection order, transfer, etc. were conducted in order as follows:

① 채권가압류(서울중앙지방법원 20XX카단XXXX): 채권자 피고 OOO 주식회사(이하 '피고 OOO'이라 함), 채무자 OOO, 제3채무자 OOO, 청구금액 000원, 제3채무자에 대한 송달일 20XX. X. X.(갑 제5-2호증의 "20XX. X. XX."은 오기로 보임)

② 채권가압류(XX지방법원 20XX카단XXXX): 채권자 피고 OOO, 채무자 OOO,

OO of the third party debtor, claim amount of KRW 000, and date of delivery to the third party debtor 20 XX. X. XX. ("20 XX. X.2" of evidence A 5-2 is deemed to be a clerical error).

3. Claim attachment (Attachment Date 20 XX. X.): A debtor's OO tax secretary under the defendant's Republic of Korea, OOO, 3 debtor's OOO, 000 won for claims, and 20 XX. X. 3 of the date of delivery to the third debtor. ④ Assignment of claims (transfer date 20 XX.4.20 April 20: transferee's OO, transferor OO, 3.

OO, assigned amount 25,00,000, and date of notification of transfer 20 XX. X. XX.

5) Transfer of claims (transfer date 20 XX. 28 April 28): The transferee Nonparty O, transferor OO, 3

OO, assigned amount of KRW 50,000,000, and date of notification of transfer 20 XX. X. XX.

(6) A collection order for seizure and collection (SeoulOO District Court 20 XXT): A creditor OO, the creditor, and the defendant OO.

OO, thirdOO, claim amount of KRW 8,000,000, and service on issuance of debentures 3

Japan 20 XX. X. X.

(7) The seizure and collection order of the provisional seizure to be transferred to the provisional seizure (Seoul Central District Court 20 XXT)

XXX - 위 서울중앙지방법원 20XX카단XXXX 채권가압류를 본압류로 이전): 채권자