Conditions to be met in case of making a claim for payment against the State according to an assignment order.

Where the whole amount of a claim for the payment of the price to the State, public organizations, and government-managed institutions is received, the whole claim shall not be claimed unless such certificate is submitted unless the verification of the full payment of the tax or the verification of the deferment of collection is omitted under Article 19 (1) of the Enforcement Decree

Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 14 and 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 112 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap6216) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 770,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from August 26, 1971 to the full payment.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The defendant sought the same judgment as the disposition.

On December 31, 1970, the contract between the non-party 77 and the defendant on July 25, 1971 as of the date of completion with respect to the construction of a part of the permanent power distribution line in the Seoul Railroad Station No. 77 of the steel No. 77 of the Kujin Construction Co., Ltd. under his order was concluded by a free contract pursuant to Article 112 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act. The plaintiff is based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed, which is the title of debt with executory power over the non-party 71sta5284, 5285, which is the title of debt against the non-party Yjin Construction Co., Ltd., the creditor's debtor, the third debtor of the non-party Yjin Construction Co., Ltd., the seizure and assignment order was issued to the defendant on August 25, 1971. The defendant bears no dispute between the parties concerned.

Article 14 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the defendant receives the payment of the price according to an assignment order, both the debtor and the execution creditor shall submit a certificate of full payment of the tax or a certificate of deferment of collection, so long as such submission is not possible, it shall be examined as follows: under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, it shall submit a certificate of full payment of the tax or a certificate of deferment of collection as prescribed by the Presidential Decree when a contract is concluded with the State, a public organization, or a government management agency; under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, it shall submit a certificate of partial payment of the tax or a certificate of deferment of collection where the price is paid to a person other than the original contractor; under Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, it shall not be required to submit a certificate of partial payment of the tax and the certificate of compulsory payment of the tax payment to the State or a local government under Article 112 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget Act.

However, in the case of the establishment of a new installation of part of the distribution line between the defendant and the non-party 1 in this case under a private contract between the defendant and the non-party 2, it is clear by the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 submitted the non-party 1's certificate of complete payment of tax, and there was no fact that the state had to waive the certificate of complete payment of tax or the certificate of deferment of tax collection under Article 19 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (the plaintiff's assertion on this point is without merit).

In this case, the plaintiff is a person who has failed to submit a certificate of full payment of tax or a certificate of full collection of tax as defined in Article 14 subparagraph 2 of the same Decree (if the non-party company's unpaid tax amount is larger than the construction price, so the certificate cannot be issued). Thus, the plaintiff's claim for full payment of the principal case cannot be exercised because the condition is not fulfilled yet.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this case is reasonable and dismissed, and the original judgment with different purport is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is justified, so it is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)