A direct payment agreement shall have the same effect as the assignment of claims.

A direct payment agreement (the same as the assignment of a claim) was made, and the direct payment agreement exceeds the amount of the contract price against the contractor, the contract price claim will be extinguished in relation to the defendant who was subsequently seized.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Gaz. 203782 Demurrer against distribution

00 Stock Companies

Korea

on 17 July 2014

on 21, 2014

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on January 27, 2014 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Busan District Court 2013 Tagi000, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 00,000, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 000,000, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 2012, AA awarded a contract to a 00 comprehensive construction company (hereinafter “00 comprehensive construction”) for the construction of a 4th floor main complex building (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the 00-dong 000-dong 000-0 above, Busan, and a 00 comprehensive construction awarded a subcontract for part of the instant construction to the subcontractors, including 00 construction companies.

B. On August 17, 2012, AA made an agreement with the subcontractors to pay the balance of the contract price directly (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”) and deposited KRW 000 on November 2, 2012, the Busan District Court deposited KRW 200 as the deposit cause of the direct payment obligation to subcontractors and the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment under the FCCC (Evidence A No. 4). The subcontractors filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit amount and received a favorable payment or a decision of recommending settlement by receiving a favorable decision or a decision of recommending settlement.

C. On the other hand, on September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff attached a claim for construction price of KRW 000 to AA of 00 as a claim for construction payment on September 24, 2012.

D. On October 0, 2013, the Defendant seized the claim for payment of the deposit, which was held by 00 comprehensive construction, as a tax claim against 00 comprehensive construction.

E. On October 0, 2013, the deposit officer of the Busan District Court reported the reason for deposit on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment and the Defendant’s seizure amount coincide with each other among the money deposited by AA, which was obtained by deducting the winning amount of the subcontractor’s winning amount. Accordingly, in the Busan District Court’s 2013TB dividend procedure case, the said court drafted a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 50,359,417 to the Defendant on January 27, 2014, and KRW 00 to the Plaintiff. The subcontractors drafted a distribution schedule to distribute the Plaintiff’s KRW 00 to the Defendant on October 0, 2012 (contractor), Defendant AA (contractor) of the direct payment agreement on September 24, 2012, attached on September 5, 2013, the purport of the entire pleadings is without dispute.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the money deposited by AA, only the plaintiff who has secured five creditors of the direct payment agreement and the opposing power against them has a legitimate right to claim and the right to distribute dividends, and there is no right to distribute dividends to the defendant who cannot oppose the deposited parties as a seizure creditor after the deposit. Therefore, it is unlawful that the distribution court distributes the total amount to the defendant and fails to distribute it to the

(b) Relevant legal principles;

If a debtor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by notification of provisional seizure or provisional seizure of the same claim as the transferee of the claim, the prior notification of the transfer with the fixed date of the assignment of claims reaches the debtor, or after the date of the consent with the fixed date of the transfer with the consent of the debtor, and such legal principle also applies to the cases where the debtor determines the priority between the transferor and the subcontractor of the provisional seizure or seizure order with respect to the same claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994). If another creditor of the debtor meets the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by notification of the fixed date of the transfer of the claims subject to seizure or provisional seizure, even if the other creditor of the debtor's transfer and provisional seizure are to attach or provisional seizure of the transferred claim, the other creditor is not entitled to participate in the execution procedure according to the seizure or provisional seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da22561, Sept. 3, 2004).

C. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, in the case of this case, there was a direct payment agreement between the contractor AA, contractor 0 comprehensive construction and subcontractor, and the direct payment agreement amount exceeds the amount of the contract price against the contractor. Thus, the claim for the contract price of 00 comprehensive construction shall be extinguished in relation to the defendant who subsequently seized the claim for the contract price. Therefore, the attachment of the defendant is null and void because it received the claim for the contract price already extinguished due to the existence of the direct payment agreement of this case. Thus, the distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the total amount of the dividend amount against the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.