Even if a wrongful remittance was made, the Plaintiff is merely entitled to a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the delinquent corporation, and it is not possible to give priority to national taxes.

Even if a wrongful remittance was made, the Plaintiff is merely entitled to a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the delinquent corporation, and as long as the Defendant is a seizure authority following lawful disposition on default, the Defendant’s national tax claim shall be deemed to have priority over the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment, which is a general claim, pursuant to the main

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016 grouped 66871 Demurrer against distribution

○ ○

Korea

June 8, 2017

July 6, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Busan District Court Decision 2016Ma626 Decided December 5, 2016, deleted the dividend amount of KRW 9,400,964 against the defendant from among the dividend table prepared by the above court on December 5, 2016, and corrected the dividend amount of KRW 9,40,964 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a mutual clothes company called “AAshion,” and December 30, 2015.

"The transfer of KRW 9,412,700 to the Industrial Bank of Korea account under the name of BB (hereinafter "B") due to mistake while remitting money to a customer due to Internet banking." BB failed to pay the aggregate of value-added tax of KRW 22,041,320 (the due date for payment: March 15, 2015 and October 30, 2015) and the Defendant (the jurisdiction: the jurisdiction) started the procedure for disposition on default to collect the said national tax on May 20, 2016 and seized the deposit claim against the said account against BB Bank.

C. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against BB seeking restitution of unjust enrichment with Busan District Court Decision 2016Da2833, and rendered a judgment that “B” from the above court to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,412,700 and its delay damages. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

D. The Bank deposited KRW 9,425,607,00,000, plus interest of KRW 9,412,700,000, and this was this.

The Busan District Court 2016Ma626 was initiated with respect to the distribution procedure.

E. On December 5, 2016, Busan District Court prepared and presented a distribution schedule to distribute to the defendant the full amount of KRW 9,400,964, which was deducted from execution expenses on the date of distribution of the above 2016Ta626 cases (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the defendant, and the plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution on February 2, 200.”

A. The plaintiff

The dividend indicated in the instant distribution schedule is the Plaintiff’s money by account transfer due to mistake, and there is no relationship with the Defendant, so the said dividend ought to be distributed to all the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant

Since the money transferred to the above account under the name of BB becomes the property of BB, and the Defendant’s claim is recognized as a priority right pursuant to the main sentence of Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the said dividend shall be distributed to the Defendant.

3. Determination

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 9,412,70 to the Industrial Bank of Korea account under the name of BB on December 30, 2015. Even if there is no legal relationship causing account transfer between the Plaintiff and B, the Plaintiff and the Industrial Bank of Korea established a deposit contract equivalent to the above amount between B and B, and B acquired a deposit claim corresponding to the above amount against the Industrial Bank of Korea. BB acquired a deposit claim equivalent to the above amount by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship causing account transfer between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff would only have a claim for return of unjust enrichment against B (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69746, Dec. 10, 209).

As long as the defendant is a seizure authority due to lawful disposition on default, the above case of distribution procedure No. 2016 other 626

Since the Defendant’s national tax claim against BB ought to be considered to have priority over the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against BB pursuant to the main sentence of Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is justifiable to distribute the total dividend to the Defendant, and it is difficult to deem that the dividend was paid to the Plaintiff’s money or the Plaintiff’s preferential right or exclusive right to receive the dividend

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

4. Conclusion

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