In case of seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, a garnishee may perform only to the country that is a collection right holder.

Attachment of claims shall prohibit the creditor and debtor of attached claims from all acts of disposal, such as repayment and collection, etc. concerning claims, and allow them to be collected on behalf of the defaulted taxpayer.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

Gwangju District Court 2015Kadan51147 Agreements, etc.

The Republic of Korea by Kim Young-young and the Intervenor

aa

June 14, 2016

July 5, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay 00 won to the plaintiff's successor and 5% interest per annum from November 27, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff’s successor and the Defendant is assessed against

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The plaintiff: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from October 1, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff: It is as set forth in paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by the parties at a corner, or by Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, based on the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff decided to purchase part of the Defendant’s co-ownership shares from the Defendant’s land Aa City AAAdong Aadong A, at KRW 000, and paid part of the purchase price to the Defendant.

B. Around June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to cancel the above sales contract, and to return KRW 000,000 out of the sales price already paid, until July 31, 2015, and KRW 00,000 until September 30, 2015.

C. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s successor seized the Plaintiff’s instant claim against the Defendant by designating the Defendant as the third obligor in order to preserve the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s national tax delinquent amount of KRW 000,000, which was pending in the instant lawsuit. On March 21, 2016, the notice of the attachment of the said claim was issued

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff has a claim for 00 won against the Defendant and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 1, 2015 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. Meanwhile, the seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits all acts of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc., against the creditor and debtor of the seized claims, and makes it possible for the debtor to collect on behalf of the delinquent taxpayer. Thus, the third debtor cannot repay the attached claims to the delinquent taxpayer, and can only perform the claims only to the State which is the collection authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686, May 14, 199). If there is a seizure and collection order for claims, only the third debtor can file a lawsuit seeking understanding of the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit seeking performance against the attached claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200).

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 00 won to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, the collection right holder under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 27, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

However, according to the above seizure by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, the plaintiff lost the standing to file a lawsuit seeking the performance of the claim of this case against the defendant. Thus, the lawsuit of this case against the defendant is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's successor's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed on the ground of its illegality and is so decided as per Disposition.