The method of seizing an investment share of a member to the Construction Mutual Aid Association through the procedure of disposition on default of national taxes, etc.

The share of investment in the Construction Mutual Aid Association shall be comprised of shares of each member of the said Mutual Aid Association and securities representing rights and duties of each member. Therefore, in order to attach the above share of investment, which is securities, in accordance with the procedure for the disposition of arrears such as taxes under the National Tax Collection Act, tax officials need to possess it

Articles 5 and 9 of the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, Article 38 of the National Tax Collection Act

Korea

Skhee et al. 4

Seoul Central District Court (85 Gohap3204) in the first instance trial

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on June 22, 1985, the amount of 1,649,475 won for the Seoul Western District Office in the Ministry of Labor and the Seoul Western District Court shall be corrected to 23,123,306 won, which is 23,123,306 won.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants in the first and second instances.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 1-2 (each distribution schedule), Gap evidence 3 (Deposit), Eul evidence 7 (Protocol of Government Custody) and Eul evidence 8-2, the court of Seoul High Court pursuant to the above 8-207 Seoul High Court's 85-207, which held the creditors' first 6-1, 36-1, 46-2, 36-1, 47, 97-2, 47, 97-2, 47, 97-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 3-2, 500-, 3-6, 500-7, 500, 530-7, 530

The Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 21,473,831 in total with vocational training contributions and additional dues for the said apartment industry in 1979 and 1980. The Plaintiff failed to pay for the said apartment industry, and the Plaintiff seized vocational training as of November 17, 1980 pursuant to Article 34(3) of this Act, Article 41(1), and Article 41(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, and Article 47(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, which is the amount of the said apartment industry’s total amount of the industrial accident compensation insurance charges in 1978 and 1,649,475, and the amount of the said apartment industry’s total amount of the claim amount distributed to the said construction mutual aid association in 1978 and 1979 is the Plaintiff’s total amount of the claim amount distributed to the said construction mutual aid association in Seoul and 300,000,000 won.

Therefore, in full view of the purport of pleadings stated in Gap evidence 2-1, 2 (Notice of Claim Seizure) and 3 (Attachment Report) of the above 1980. The plaintiff's 1979 and 21,473,831 shares of the above 1980. The plaintiff's claim against the above 3 construction mutual aid association can be found to have been rejected for the above 196th of the total amount of shares in arrears (No. 46th of the above 7th of the 3th of the 197th of the 4th of the 197th of the 197th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 3th of the 4th of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 5th of the th of the 5th of the 5th of the shares.

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff, an interested party under the Auction Act, of the date and place of auction until March 6, 1985, when the above execution court received the above sale price, and therefore, the plaintiff did not submit a request for delivery of the price or a statement of account. As such, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff did not recognize the validity of the seizure disposition on the above investment certificate as a creditor of the above apartment industry. Thus, the plaintiff is not a person who is in a position to claim a claim in the distribution procedure of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim is not permissible under the law

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and thus dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Tae-hoon (Presiding Judge)

Judge Lee Hong-hoon cannot sign and seal it is during overseas business trips.