beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The final and conclusive judgment of the case of demurrer against the distribution (the fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence 3) the Plaintiff remitted KRW 110 million to the deposit account of the Korea Bank of ASEAN Co., Ltd., in error. The Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against ASEAN to seek the return of the said money and received payment order with the Ulsan District Court 2014 tea727.
In addition, on August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order as to the deposit claim against the bank of ASEAN as the claim claim amounting to KRW 111,645,023 in total due to the executory payment order against ASEAN.
(This Court 2014TTT 10519). The defendant seized the deposit claims against the Korean bank AC in relation to the default of the national tax of ACC.
The Bank deposited KRW 67,988,545 to the Seoul Central District Court on the ground of seizure competition, etc., and the Suwon District Court distributed KRW 6,530,238 to A as the first (wages Creditor) and KRW 61,457,945 as the seizure authority against the Defendant in the distribution procedure implemented on November 10, 2014 with respect to the deposit, and prepared a distribution schedule that did not distribute to the Plaintiff.
(B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with Suwon District Court Decision 2014Da65362, and sought modification of the distribution schedule by revoking the dividend dividends to the Defendant and distributing the dividends to the Plaintiff.
However, the judgment against the plaintiff became final and conclusive on the ground that the defendant is a national tax creditor, and is a senior creditor in the distribution procedure.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was remitted to A.I.D., and the distribution procedure was carried out. As such, the Defendant’s withdrawal of benefits from the State, which requires the protection of the citizens by extinguishing the Plaintiff’s actual income, is not legally worth protecting, and is contrary to the good faith principle and to the concept of fairness.