Whether sending a notice of attachment by facsimile is a legitimate seizure

It is determined that ○ Bank, which was not in the position of judging the validity of the notification of seizure by facsimile, and whether the seizure and collection order of this case coincides with the seizure of this case, refused the Plaintiff’s request to avoid the risk of double payment.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

○○○○ District Court 2006Ma453 decided on June 1, 2006 that the dividend amount of 26,634,393 won against the defendant among the dividend table prepared by the above court on June 1, 2006, and the dividend amount of 26,634,393 won against the plaintiff, shall be corrected respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is based on the original copy of the ○○○ District Court 2005da239385, which filed against ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○”) on January 9, 2006, issued a decision to seize and collect the claim (hereinafter referred to as “the order of seizure and collection”) against KRW 65,396,17 of the deposit claims against ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association (hereinafter

B. In order to collect 27,234,060 won in global income tax amount of the above ○○○○○, the head of the above tax office attached the above deposit claims (hereinafter “instant attachment”) on January 5, 2006, and the above attachment decision was served on △△△ on February 23, 2006.

C. However, △△△ on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim seizure and collection order and the Defendant’s seizure and collection order are concurrent with respect to KRW 26,643,273 of the deposit to be paid to ○○○○○○○○○ in March 2, 2006, deposited the said deposit with ○○○ District Court No. 814 in 2006, and reported the reasons for such deposit.

D. Accordingly, the ○○○ District Court established a distribution procedure for the said deposited money as 2006ta-Ba453, and prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiff excluded from the distribution of dividends, after deducting KRW 8,880 of the enforcement cost from KRW 26,63,273 of the deposited money on June 1, 2006, from KRW 26,634,393.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of the Defendant’s dividend on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 5, 2006.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff was served on △△△ on January 12, 2006 by the decision of the seizure and collection order of the instant claim. On January 13, 2006, the Plaintiff visited △△△△△△△△△△△○ on January 16, 2006. On January 16, 2006, the Plaintiff sent the notice of seizure of the instant claim to the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff was prohibited from collecting the instant claim by facsimile around 09:32 on the same day. As such, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s legitimate legal rights by disregarding the lawful delivery procedures prescribed in the law and by taking advantage of the superior position of the tax office to prevent the Plaintiff’s collection, the Plaintiff asserts that the said dividend amount should be deleted and distributed all to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) As to the dividend order of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s claim, there is no doubt that the Defendant is obliged to receive repayment in the distribution procedure prior to the Plaintiff, a general creditor, as a national tax creditor.

(2) However, according to the records of the above evidence and evidence No. 1, ○○ Tax Office’s superior position of the tax office to disregard the legal service procedure under the law and prevent the Plaintiff’s collection, the notice of this case’s seizure was sent by facsimile (fax) to seize the above deposit claim against the △△△△△△△△ at around January 16, 2006. Accordingly, around 09:36 of the same day, △△△△△ refused the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the deposit claim at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, but it was recognized that the report of change was entered in the report of the accident regarding the above deposit claim, and it was not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s refusal of the request by the tax office’s superior position to avoid the risk of double payment, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s request by facsimile or the collection order.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.