The tax disposition procedure stipulated in the National Tax Collection Act shall be different from the execution procedure by the execution court under the Civil Execution Act.

The tax disposition procedure executed under the National Tax Collection Act shall fall under a separate procedure from the compulsory execution procedure by the execution court under the Civil Execution Act, and may not make any deposit for execution under the Civil Execution Act on the ground of the said disposition

Article 36 of the Civil Act (Exercise of Security Right to Claim)

2015da65972 Confirmation of a person entitled to deposit money

Han 00

Korea

September 15, 2015

October 13, 2015

1. On August 28, 2014, the Defendant Young Branch Distribution Co., Ltd. confirmed that the right to claim the payment of the deposit amount of KRW 18,746,196 deposited by Daeyang PPS Co., Ltd. with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014 Gold 19323 on August 28, 2014 was the Plaintiff. The Defendant confirmed that the right to claim the payment of the deposit amount of KRW 18,746,646,796,796 deposited by Daeyang PPS Co., Ltd. with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014 on August 28, 2014 was the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

On August 28, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the right to claim the payment of deposit money for KRW 18,746,196 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Hun-Ba 19323 on August 28, 2014 was against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2013, Sammi Business Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Tmi business") entered into an agreement on goods transaction to pay the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff. On March 3, 2010, Samyang Business Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Tongyangyang") entered into a contract on goods transaction with the Plaintiff on March 3, 2010 with respect to the purchase price claim (hereinafter referred to as the "claim in this case") under the contract on goods transaction with the Plaintiff on March 3, 2010. On November 27, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court received KRW 324,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and the collateral security holder entered into a registration on the creation of the collateral security interest (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of the collateral security interest in this case").

B. As to the instant claim, on January 9, 2014, the notice of assignment of claims issued by Defendant Young Branch Distribution Company, ② on August 13, 2014, the notice of attachment based on the claims in arrears amounting to KRW 65,575,870, including corporate tax, wage and salary income tax, value added tax, etc., on August 13, 2014, were served on each opposite country. On August 28, 2014, on deposit with the Seoul Central District Court KRW 18,764,196, based on the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act on August 28, 2014, on deposit of KRW 18,764,196, as the Seoul Central District Court 2014 Deposit KRW 18,764,196 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant deposit”), the amount of claims paid by the Plaintiff or the Defendant Young Branch Distribution Company, or Central District Tax Office.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through Gap 6, Eul 1 and Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

The deposit of this case constitutes a mixed deposit with both the nature of the deposit for repayment and the deposit for execution in light of the description of the cause of deposit and the circumstances leading to the deposit. The third debtor, as the obligor, omitted a third party business, and thereby failed to meet the requirements of the execution deposit under the condition that the execution obligor is a genuine holder of the right by omitting the third party business, which is the execution obligor. Therefore, the deposit of this case is null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of the deposit of this case

B. Determination

The above attachment disposition by the director of the Central Tax Office is conducted by an administrative agency in accordance with the procedure for tax disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, it is not possible to deposit the execution under the Civil Execution Act on the ground of the above attachment disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da60557, Apr. 10, 2008). Since it is reasonable to view that the above attachment disposition and the assignment of claims are concurrent with the above attachment disposition as seen earlier, the above defendant's principal safety defense based on the premise that the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit with the nature of the execution deposit is without merit.

Even if the deposit of this case can be deemed as a mixed deposit having the nature of the execution deposit, unless there are special circumstances to deem the part of the deposit of this case in excess of the seizure amount as a repayment deposit by the director of the Central Tax Office taking a seizure disposition only for the part of the claim of this case, the victim of the deposit of this case does not need to be stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da62688, May 14, 199). In this regard, the above Defendant’s defense on the ground of the claim is without merit.

(a) Relevant provisions and Article 35 of the Act concerning Security over Movable Property, Claims, etc.;

(1) Acquisition, loss, or change of security interest in claims under an agreement may be asserted against any third party other than the obligor of nominative claims (hereinafter referred to as the "third party obligor") at the time of registration in the collateral security register.

(2) A secured party or a person who has created a security interest (referring to the transferor or transferee, if a security interest in an obligation is transferred) shall not oppose a third-party obligor, unless he/she notifies the third-party obligor of the fact by establishing the certificate of registration referred to in Article 52 or the third-party obligor accepts it

(3) Where the registration of the collateral security register and the notification or consent under Article 349 or 450 (2) of the Civil Act are made for the same claim, the secured party or the transferee of a claim that is the object of the collateral may claim his/her right according to the registration and the arrival of such notification or consent to any third party other than the garnishee, unless otherwise provided for in Acts.

(4) Articles 451 and 452 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to notification and consent under paragraph (2).

Article 36 (Exercise of Security Interests in Claims)

(1) A secured party may directly claim a claim that has become the object of a security interest in an obligation within the extent of the secured claim.

(2) If an obligation which becomes the object of a security interest in an obligation falls due earlier than the secured claim, the secured party may request the third obligor to deposit the amount repaid with the competent court. In such cases, after the third obligor deposits the amount repaid, the security interest in an obligation exists in the deposit.

B. Determination of the cause of the claim against the defendant Young branch distribution company

With respect to the claim of this case, the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of the right to deposit and withdrawal on the deposit money between the plaintiff and the defendant pursuant to Article 35 (3) of the Act on Security over Movable Property, Claims, Etc. is not clearly disputed by the above defendant. Thus, the right to deposit and withdrawal on the deposit money between the plaintiff and the defendant pursuant to Article 35 (3) of the Act on Security over Movable Property

C. Determination of the cause of claim against the defendant Republic of Korea

The order of priority between the taxation claims and the security rights except for the pertinent tax shall be determined by the statutory due date and the date of the establishment of the security rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9088, Nov. 24, 2005). As seen earlier, the date of establishment of the security rights in the instant case is November 27, 2013; on the other hand, the claims for arrears of KRW 65,575,870 from the director of the secondary tax office with regard to the three main businesses consisting of corporate tax, wage and salary tax, value added tax, and only corporate tax of KRW 9,400 is prior to the date of establishment of the above legal period and corporate tax of August 31, 2013. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties, or between Section 1 and Section 2, and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as Section 35(1) of the Act on Security over Movable Property, Claims, Etc., the above portion of the claims against the Plaintiff and the Defendant deposit money (i.)

(d) Benefits of confirmation;

The Plaintiff, as a creditor related to the deposit for repayment, shall submit to the deposited public official a document attesting that the deposit repayment claim belongs to himself/herself, and such document shall include a final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit for confirmation of the right to deposit payments filed against interested parties, such as the person designated as the person to whom the deposit was made. Therefore, there is a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendants that the right to

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Young Branch Distribution Co., Ltd. is reasonable, and the claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is reasonable within the above scope of recognition. Thus, each of the above claims is accepted, and the remaining claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is dismissed as