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

Upon notification of attachment under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, the obligor of the attached claim is obligated to pay the collection amount within the scope of the delinquent amount of the delinquent taxpayer.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Gaz. 57985 Collections

Korea

AAA Sbetain, Inc.

April 12, 2019

May 3, 2019

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from April 12, 2019 to the date of full payment with respect tox,x,x,xx, andxx, from November 30, 2017, and from the date of full payment with respect tox,x,x, andxx, from among the above amounts to the Plaintiff.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

Order.1)

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On March 7, 2016, BB entered into a sales contract between the Defendant and O-O large 1,002 m2.4m2, with respect to co-ownership shares of 167.06/100,002.4m2, the purchase price was KRW x00 million (the contract amount x.x. of December 2015 on the date of payment), and the balance x00 million (x. of March 2016 on the date of payment) (hereinafter referred to as "the instant sales contract"; hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on March 2, 2016 to the Defendant.

2) BB has not paid capital gains taxxx,xx, andxx number that was imposed and imposed by the director of a tax office by the end of September 30, 2016 (the due date of demand payment, October 30, 2016) on the capital gains tax that was determined and imposed by the director of a tax office by the due date of December 31, 2016 (the due date of demand payment, January 30, 2017).

3) Accordingly, on December 6, 2016, the head of a Aaa tax office attached an amount until the end of each national tax in arrears (including each of the above capital gains tax, additional dues, increased additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default) among the claims for remaining purchase and sale of a x billion xB, which BB has against the Defendant under Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, and notified the Defendant thereof.

4) As of April 30, 2019, BB’s delinquent tax amount of capital gains tax on April 30, 2019 is x,x,x,x,xx (i.e., delinquent tax amount of capital gains tax on the capital gains tax imposed by the director of a tax office (x,x,x,xx, andxx).

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition or are not clearly disputed, entry of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

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 the obligation to the State, the subrogated obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2476, Apr. 12, 198; 2004Da24960, Dec. 21, 2006).

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff who becomes the collection authority pursuant to Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act the balance of the purchase and sale due to the sales contract of this case x0 million won (the defendant does not clearly dispute the fact that the balance x billion under the sales contract of this case has not been paid to BB) to the plaintiff who is the collection authority pursuant to Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the amount of arrears x, x, x, x, and xx from November 30, 2017 to x, xx, x, x, x, and xx, from April 12, 2019 to 15 percent per annum as requested by the plaintiff with respect to the above x, x, x, x, and xx from the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to 2019.

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The Defendant asserts that the instant real estate owned by BB, a pro-friendly CCC, and owned the title trust to BB, and that the Plaintiff (aaa director of tax office and B director of tax office) knowingly seized the property of BB, which is not a taxpayer, the respective seizure disposition of the Plaintiff is null and void as it is the subject of the third party’s property.

On the other hand, there is no evidence proving the defendant's above assertion, and even if it is assumed that CCC trusted the real estate of this case to BB as alleged by the defendant, CCC only has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against BB, and the claim for the purchase price under the above real estate sales contract belongs to BB, which is the party to the contract, and therefore the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

1) As a preparatory document dated April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim to seek payment of the money calculated at the rate of 15% per annum with respect to x,x,x,xx and among x, x,x, and from the date following the date of service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case with respect to x,x,x, andx, x, andx, x, from the date following the date of service of the copy of the written application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim with respect to x,x, and xx, x, the date of service of the duplicate of the written application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, so the above "date of service of the duplicate of the written application for change" appears to be referred to as "the