The tax authorities have seized the delinquent’s sales claims, and the third debtor is liable to pay to the tax authorities.

A tax authority imposed a tax authority on a delinquent taxpayer who runs real estate sales business, but the third debtor is liable to pay the delinquent tax due to the failure to cancel the contract for the relevant real estate, so the third debtor is liable to pay the delinquent tax to the tax authority on the seized claim.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

Seoul Northern District Court-2015-Gohap-26522 ( October 20, 2017)

*

Korea

on July 2017 20

Seoul Northern District Court Decision

2015 Gohap26522 Collections

Plaintiff Republic of Korea

Defendant*

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 483,694,000 won with 15% interest per annum from December 3, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a taxation claim of KRW 100 as of November 26, 2015 against a company * △△△△ Company (hereinafter referred to as “△△△ Company”) that defaulted in the payment of national taxes as follows.

(b)The △△△△ Company concluded each sales contract with the Defendant with respect to Seoul***Gu** 10-gil 14, 115 and 116, which was owned by it, as follows, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant.

C. As to the balance on May 28, 2014, 115, and 116, the △△△△ Company and the Defendant drafted a written agreement on the payment performance of the balance of real estate transactions, which deferred the payment date until July 31, 2015, with respect to the balance on June 14, 2014, and the Defendant applied for the refund of each value-added tax as follows. On September 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) confirmed on-site the application amount for the refund of value-added tax, which was applied by the Defendant, was conducted on-site; and (b) determined the full refund by deeming the said application amount appropriate.

D. Meanwhile, at the time of the on-site verification, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a written reply (Evidence A 5) that the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 213,720,640, KRW 114, KRW 271,507,00, KRW 115, KRW 212,187,00, KRW 116, KRW 216, KRW 213,720, KRW 640, and KRW 697,414,640.

E. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff seized KRW 498,694,000, out of the outstanding claim 697,414,640 against the Defendant of △△△△ Company, pursuant to Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act (hereinafter “instant attachment”), and on June 17, 2015, notified the Defendant of the attachment of the above claim.

(f) relevant legal provisions;

○ Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

(1) In seizing claims, the head of a tax office shall notify it to the obligor of the relevant claim (hereinafter referred to as the "third obligor").

(2) Upon notification under paragraph (1), the director of the tax office shall subrogate the obligee who is the defaulted taxpayer within the limit of the delinquent amount.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff, an execution creditor who subrogated the △△ Company pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act by taking the instant attachment disposition, with 15% interest per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 3, 2015 to the date of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion

The instant shopping mall sold 114, 115, and 116 to pay the balance to the △△△ Company. The sales of the said shopping mall was not made. Before the notice of the instant seizure disposition was given, the letter, confirmation, and certificate received from the surveying of the △△△ Company as follows.

The defendant is not liable to pay the balance to △△ Company, or even if it is liable to pay the balance, it cannot be deemed that the payment period of the balance has arrived until the commercial buildings are sold.

B. Determination

The Defendant’s assertion is interpreted to the effect that since the ownership of the instant commercial buildings is expected to be transferred to this**, Kim*, the instant sales contract concluded between the Defendant and the △△ Company was rescinded, and that the Defendant did not have any obligation to be borne by the △△ Company.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the submission of an application for the refund of value-added tax on the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff, i.e., (i) the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant still remains in respect of the instant commercial buildings even after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the documents, confirmations, and certificates presented by the Defendant were prepared; (ii) the former owner of the instant commercial buildings is a △△ Company, which is subject to transfer of ownership under the above, ** or Kim*; (iii) there seems to be no discussion about the issue of the down payment, intermediate payment, and damages that should have been discussed naturally if the instant contract was rescinded; and (iv) the Defendant received a refund from the Plaintiff by applying for the refund of value-added tax on the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff at the time of the on-site verification by the tax office; and (v) it is difficult to view that the written reply (Evidence No. 5) prepared by the Defendant at the time of the on-site verification by

Furthermore, the sales of commercial buildings with the balance payment date only with the certificates of Nos. 2 through 4 (cimulation, confirmation, and performance note)

It is also difficult to view it as being postponed until the time.

All Defendant’s arguments are rejected.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.