In a lawsuit for collection, the third obligor cannot refuse the repayment of the attached obligation due to the disposition on default on the grounds that the absence of a taxation claim or extinguishment of a taxation claim.

The claim of this case based on the premise of the existence of the taxation claim of this case is also groundless, since there are substantive and procedural defects in the disposition of this case due to its substantive and procedural defects. However, in the lawsuit of collection, the defendant, the third debtor, cannot refuse the repayment of the obligation subject to attachment due to the disposition of arrears due to the absence or extinguishment of the taxation claim of this case.

2012 Gohap 524941 Loans

Korea

KimA

December 28, 2012

February 6, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 20% interest per annum from August 18, 2012 to the day of complete payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against KimB

KimB is in arrears with the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax and gift tax amounting to KRW 000,000 as of August 6, 2012 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s above inheritance tax and gift tax claim”).

(Omission of Details of Claims)

B. The loan claim of this case against the defendant KimB

On April 20, 2007, KimB lent KRW 000 to the Defendant with interest free (hereinafter referred to as "loan claim of KimB").

(c) Attachment of claims by the disposition for arrears of the director of the tax office.

On September 19, 2011, the head of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff attached the instant loan claims due to the disposition on default based on the instant tax claim, and notified the third obligor thereof to the Defendant who is the third obligor, and on September 23, 2012, the notice of attachment was served on the Defendant.

(d) Peremptory notice of performance for collection;

On November 15, 2011, and March 12, 2012, the director of the tax office notified the Defendant to perform the instant loan obligation for collection, and each of the said peremptory notices reached the Defendant on November 18, 201 and March 15, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the National Tax Number Act, when the director of the tax office attaches claims by the disposition on default, he/she shall notify the obligor of the relevant claims (third obligor). (Article 41(1)), and the effect of the attachment shall accrue when the notice of attachment is served on the third obligor (Article 42), and when the director of the tax office has notified the third obligor of the attachment under Article 41(1), he/she shall subrogate the obligee who is the defaulted taxpayer within the limit of the delinquent amount (Article 41(2)). In cases where the director of the tax office subrogated the obligee by notifying the obligor of the attachment in accordance with the disposition on default, he/she shall be deemed to have acquired the right to collect the claims. Therefore, the obligor of the seized claims shall be liable to perform the obligation to the subrogated obligee if the due date has come to the due date. The obligor of the attached claims is health class, the director of the tax office seizes the instant claims by the disposition on default to the third obligor, and the director of the tax office shall obtain the right to collect the claims in this case by the first 10% and the obligor.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense and argument

A. The defendant, while there are substantive and procedural defects in the disposition of taxation of the tax of the case, and there are grounds for revocation, the claim of this case on the premise of the existence of the tax claim of this case is also groundless. However, in the collection lawsuit, the defendant, the garnishee, cannot refuse the repayment of the seized obligation due to the disposition of arrears due to the absence or extinguishment of the tax claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994). The above argument of the defendant is without merit. (b) The defendant, while the defendant, some of the loans of this case, having been repaid to KimB and had no obligation remaining in KimB, there is no defense, and there is no evidence to support the defense, the above defense of the defendant is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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