A. The relationship between the procedure for arrears and the procedure for civil execution under the current law, and the purport of Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Under the current law, the procedure for delinquency in payment of national taxes and civil execution procedure are separate procedures, and there is no provision in the law regulating relations between the procedure, so one procedure cannot interfere with the procedure of the other party, while each creditor in both procedures is bound to participate in the different procedure by the method determined by the different procedures. Thus, even if a provisional attachment for corporeal movables is executed, the provisional attachment for corporeal movables is invalidated upon termination of a public auction disposition by a disposition of default on national taxes, and it cannot be deemed that the debtor’s claims for return of the remaining realization

B. The reason for recognizing the right to deposit the amount of debt with the garnishee under Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is to eliminate the damage since it is extremely heavy burden on the garnishee and it is likely to prejudice the appropriateness of the compulsory execution procedure, in the case where there are many persons who assert a right to the seized claim in the compulsory execution procedure against the claim and the above amount of claim cannot be satisfied with all persons.

(a) Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act;

Hanyang Steel Industry Co., Ltd.

Han-il Bank et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na545 delivered on November 26, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 and the grounds of appeal by Hanil Bank Co., Ltd. are also examined.

Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the disposition on default shall not affect the execution of the disposition on default due to a judicial provisional attachment or provisional disposition. The current law does not provide for the law regulating relations between the procedure and the procedure, so one procedure cannot interfere with the procedure of the other party. On the other hand, each creditor in both procedures shall be bound to participate in the different procedure.

Therefore, even if a provisional attachment is executed for corporeal movables, the disposition of national taxes in arrears is conducted without being exempted, and when the public auction procedure for corporeal movables is completed, the provisional attachment of corporeal movables shall lose its effect, and it shall not be deemed that the debtor's claims to return the proceeds from the realization of the remaining amount of national taxes have the effect of the provisional attachment. Therefore, the creditor who already seized corporeal movables shall separately seize the claims to

From the standpoint of objection, there is no reason to criticize the original judgment.

We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 by Hanil Bank.

Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the right to deposit the amount of obligation with the garnishee who has been served a demand for distribution of monetary claims as to the monetary claims. The reason why the right to deposit the amount of obligation with the garnishee is that in the compulsory execution procedure against the claims, in case where there are many persons asserting the right to the seized claims, and the above amount of claims cannot be satisfied with all persons, it is necessary to have the garnishee examine whether to demand or double seizure and the appropriateness of each seizure, and allow the third party obligor to appropriately distribute to the true right holder or the preferential right holder.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff, the defendants, the Dongnam corporation, the Industrial Bank of Korea non-party 1, and the non-party 2 had each claim against the non-party corporation for the provisional seizure of the corporeal movables in this case. After that, the director of the Busan Dong Busan District Tax Office imposed a disposition of national tax on the corporeal movables in this case and applied the amount of KRW 71,00,000 for the public sale price to national taxes, etc., and decided that the amount of KRW 26,034,290 remain. Thus, the plaintiff, the creditor of the above non-party company, was ordered to seize and seize the claims for the return of the above remaining amount in the Republic of Korea of the non-party company, and the above non-party 2 was ordered to seize and seize the above non-party 3 debtor, and it was difficult to determine whether the provisional seizure becomes void prior to the procedure for the disposition of arrears and whether the above 2 assignment order is competition with the claims. Thus, the plaintiff can interpret the above provisions of Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by analogy.

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)