Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Round, Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Asset Management Corporation

October 10, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of allocating the proceeds from the public sale of golf membership owned by Nonparty 1 on March 13, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 11, 1997, when the Plaintiff lent KRW 300 million to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff created a pledge to golf membership against Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who was owned by Nonparty 1, but did not notify the fact to Nonparty 1 or obtain consent from the Plaintiff.

B. On May 25, 200, when Nonparty 1 did not pay the comprehensive income tax, the director of the Songpa District Tax Office attached the above membership on May 25, 2000. On March 13, 2007, upon receipt of a request to sell by proxy the above membership, the Defendant, upon receipt of a request to sell by proxy, distributed 8,418,280,280, and 49,282,870 won to the head of the Songpa District Tax Office in the second order, and then, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for counterclaim against the third party as the pledgee, he prepared a distribution statement (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In determining to whom to distribute the remainder after allocating the expenses for disposition on default and the remainder to the director of the Songpa District Tax Office, the head of the Song District Tax Office or the defendant is merely a written execution officer, so it is not necessary to satisfy the requisite for setting up against him in establishing a pledge. Ultimately, in the remaining situation between the plaintiff and the non-party 10, the payment of the balance to the non-party 1, who is a pledgee, who is a pledgee, is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 81(1) and (3) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, etc. provides that a public auction proceeds shall be distributed to the claims secured by national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears related to the seizure, national taxes, additional dues, disposition fees for arrears, local taxes or public charges related to the seizure, and when there is any balance, it shall be paid to the delinquent taxpayer. The purport of the above provision is that the public auction and distribution procedures under the Civil Execution Act are in accord with public interest and judicial resolution thereof, and the public auction procedures for the compulsory collection of tax claims are in accord with the provisions under the Civil Procedure Act, established by the court, independent judicial institution, to ensure prompt satisfaction of tax claims by an administrative agency based on the public nature of the tax claims, and the two procedures are different in nature from those under the Civil Execution Act, and thus, it is unreasonable to determine the amount of the claims under the National Tax Collection Act and the amount of the final distribution order of the claims under the National Tax Collection Act, as long as there is no express provision on the procedure for public auction under the Civil Execution Act.

However, in the scope of "right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage related to the attached property" subject to the allocation of the proceeds of a public auction, unlike the right of lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, or pledge that requires the delivery of movable property, in the case of a right of pledge concerning a general nominative claim without a document of claim under the right of pledge, the right of pledge can be asserted against a third party including the third party obligor only with the consent of the third party obligor under Article 349 of the Civil Act (the notification or consent by a document with a fixed date for a third party) in addition to the agreement of pledge, in addition to the agreement of pledge, in the case of a right of pledge concerning a general nominative claim without a document of claim. In this case, the third party's right of claim is not different from the position of general creditor in relation to the third party other than the debtor, and there is no reason to exclude the defendant in charge of the distribution of the proceeds of a public auction in the procedure of a public auction under the National Tax Collection Act. This is contrary to the principle of equality between other creditors and creditors.

2) In full view of these relevant provisions, legal principles, and facts set forth in the above 1.1., the Plaintiff’s pledge against Nonparty 1 does not meet the requirements for setting up against the third party, such as notification to the third party obligor by the certificate with a fixed date and his consent, and thus does not take precedence over the general creditor, and thus does not constitute an object of distribution of the proceeds of public sale under the National Tax Collection Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful and the Plaintiff’s assertion

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) and Kim Jong-hee