Whether the insurance money is prohibited from seizure

The amount of payment, which is the basis of small financial property prohibited from seizure, is interpreted as the amount of payment of the relevant insurance as is, and it is difficult to view it as the cancellation refund actually received at the time of cancellation as alleged by the plaintiff.

2018Na52784 ( November 02, 2018)

KimA

Korea

October 05, 2018

November 1, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,457,690 won with 5% interest per annum from March 17, 2017 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 2, 2009, the Plaintiff registered his/her business in the name of Kimhae-si from 326-14 to 326-14, and operated his/her printing business. On November 9, 2010, the Plaintiff was ex officio closed by the head of the Kimhae-si Tax Office.

B. On July 5, 2012, when the Plaintiff failed to pay the global income tax of KRW 12,623,650, value-added tax of KRW 37,317,440,09, the Defendant seized the insurance proceeds of "CCC Health Insurance (hereinafter "the instant insurance"), which is a security insurance company for DDA Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the instant insurance"), and collected KRW 1,457,690 on March 17, 2017, and appropriated the amount of delinquent tax.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of seizure, the total amount of the instant insurance was KRW 5,244,00,000, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff.

2,60,000 won was loaned halfway and the cancellation refund of the insurance of this case was KRW 1,475,690.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4 to 8, argument

The purport of the whole

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 31 subparag. 13 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11605, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former National Tax Collection Act”) and Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24367, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act”) provide that small financial property necessary for a delinquent taxpayer’s livelihood, the insurance proceeds of a guaranteed insurance contract, the amount of which is less than three million won, and the refund money for cancellation of the contract, shall be classified as non-endable property. Since small financial property stipulated in the above Act and subordinate statutes ought to be based on the actual property, it shall be construed as the amount corresponding to the refund money for cancellation of the contract at the time of cancellation. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act of collecting insurance proceeds of this case, which is unlawful, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the cancellation refund of the insurance of this case.

B. Determination

On the other hand, Article 31 subparag. 13 of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that a small financial property necessary for a delinquent taxpayer’s livelihood, which is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall not be seized. Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the amount of payment is insurance money and refund money for cancellation of a guaranteed insurance with the amount of payment less than three million won. Thus, the relevant Act provides that the amount of payment which serves as the basis for a property prohibited from seizure is not only the amount of payment under the above Act, but also the amount of insurance money and refund money for cancellation shall not be seized based on three million won. In light of the fact that Article 31 subparag. 13 of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that the amount of payment which serves as the basis for a small financial property prohibited from seizure shall be construed as the amount of payment of the relevant insurance, and it is difficult to view it as the refund money for cancellation of the contract at the time of cancellation

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.