logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.12.20 2017가합207264
추심금
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 70 million and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from February 22, 2017 to December 20, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D did not pay KRW 368,916,390 (i.e., KRW 57,039, KRW 220, KRW 32,896,900, KRW 56,971, KRW 620, KRW 222,08,650) for transfer income tax for the year 2016 that was payable to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 57,039, KRW 220, KRW 322,00, KRW 650). As of August 31, 2017, a total of KRW 421

B. Around December 28, 2015, D entered into a sales contract with Defendant A to sell part of the purchase price of KRW 82,800,000,000,000 to Defendant A, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on February 25, 2016.

C. Around November 20, 2015, D entered into a sales contract with Defendant B to sell part of the purchase price of KRW 840,000,000,000 to Defendant B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on February 25, 2016.

D around December 2015, Defendant C entered into a sales contract with Defendant C to sell part of the land outside Yongcheon-si G and two parcels, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 25, 2016.

E. On February 21, 2017, in order to collect the transfer income tax, etc. on D’s default, the Plaintiff seized the amount up to the amount in arrears among each of the accrued purchase price claims on each of the above land owned by D against the Defendants. On the same day, the Plaintiff sent the notice of seizure of each claim to the Defendants on the 22th of the same month following the same day. Each of the notice of seizure of claims was sent to the Defendants

[Ground of recognition] Each statement of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D, H, and I's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff holds a tax claim against D due to delinquency in payment of capital gains tax, etc., and the Defendants did not pay part of the purchase price of each land to D. Therefore, it is against D.

arrow