The deposit of this case cannot be effective as the execution deposit for the reason of the seizure of the defendant's Republic of Korea, who is the execution creditor due to the disposition on default.

The deposit of this case cannot be effective as an execution deposit due to the seizure of the defendant's Republic of Korea, the execution creditor due to the disposition on default. However, the validity of the repayment deposit due to the assignment of claims is a problem only. The defendant's Republic of Korea does not fall under the party against whom the deposit of this case was made, and there is no legal ground to seek confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit against the

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

Seoul Central District Court-2013-Ga group-183906 ( November 27, 2014)

Ansan 00

Republic of Korea outside 3

October 30, 2014

November 27, 2014

1. The part of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff, defendant corporation, 1, 200 Sc. and 200 Sc., 200 Sc., 20*. *. *, *, *, **, *, **, * the plaintiff's right to claim the payment of deposit money against the plaintiff.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Inc., Ltd., and between South0 and North Korea is assessed against the Defendants, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Korea is assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The plaintiff and the defendants confirm that the AAA Co., Ltd. deposited *. 20*. *. this court 20** *, *, **, *** the right to claim payment of deposit money against the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant, 000 hybrids, South 00, and Kim00

(a) Indication of claims: To be stated in the corresponding part of the grounds for the claims;

(b)

(1) Confession judgment: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Defendant 1)

(2) Judgment by public notice: Subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph (Defendant 2, Defendant 3)

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) Basic facts;

(1) On April 10, 2008, Defendant 1, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 00's character”) notified the Plaintiff of his claim against “AA” (hereinafter referred to as “AA”) on the part of the Plaintiff on April 10, 200 *.*. The transfer of any claim that currently exists or will have been held for the future three years* *. *. 200*. *. *. *. this is notified to AA.

(2) The defendant Republic of Korea issued a seizure disposition on the claims against the defendant AA due to the failure to pay the tax corresponding to KRW***,***,******** the seizure disposition on claims against the defendant AA due to the failure to pay the tax corresponding to KRW 16******** the notification to AA.

(3) AA bears the obligation to pay for the goods of 000 hybrids**************, the obligation to pay for the goods of 00 hybrids, but the provisional attachment against the Plaintiff and the attachment of the claim against the Defendant, etc. against the Plaintiff as to the claim to pay for the goods of 00 hybrids, and the provisional attachment against the Defendant, etc., was made and the provisional attachment against the obligee and the attachment of the claim against the Republic of Korea.*****: (1) the deposited person is the Defendant or the Plaintiff; (2) the deposit papers were made as the Defendant, Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 248(1) and Article 291 of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter referred to as the “deposit of this case”).

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence A No. 1-1, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit against Defendant Republic of Korea

The procedure for disposition on default and civil execution procedure are separate procedures, so one procedure cannot interfere with the procedure of the other, while each creditor is bound to participate in the different procedure by way of mutually different procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da33842, Nov. 13, 2008). In light of the difference between the effect of seizure under the National Tax Collection Act and seizure under the Civil Execution Act, the difference between the procedure for disposition on default and the procedure for compulsory execution, etc., seizure, which is the premise of deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, does not include seizure of claims under the National Tax Collection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da20326, Apr. 12, 2007). In addition, in the case of a relative non-refilled deposit, it is difficult to confirm that one of the deposited parties has received a consent of the other deposited parties or a claim against the other deposited parties, and thus, it cannot be seen as 2050.3650 of the aforementioned judgment against the deposited parties.

In light of the above legal principles, even if AA, a third debtor, made the deposit of this case as the repayment deposit and the execution deposit, the deposit of this case cannot be effective as the execution deposit for the reason of seizure of the defendant's Republic of Korea, an execution creditor due to a disposition on default. However, the validity of the repayment deposit for the creditor's uncertainty due to the assignment of claims is a problem. The defendant's Republic of Korea does not correspond to the beneficiary of the deposit of this case, and there is no legal ground to seek confirmation of the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case against the above defendant. Accordingly, there is no interest to confirm the part of the lawsuit of this case against

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case against the defendant's Republic of Korea is unlawful and dismissed, and the part against the defendant's 00's brick, South00, and Kim 00 is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.