Action to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money

In accordance with the certificate with a fixed date date, the above acceptance has the opposing power against the third party pursuant to Article 450(2) of the Civil Act.

Article 35 (Principle of National Tax Priority)

2015da 122217. Action to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money

Hyundai00 Stock Company

Republic of Korea Overseas

2016.03.10

2016.04.28

1. On January 22, 2015, Nonpartys confirmed that: (a) KRW 105,748,318 out of the deposit money deposited by Suwon District Court No. 808, 2015; and (b) KRW 00 out of the deposit money deposited by Nonpartys with the Suwon District Court No. 808, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim for payment of deposit money calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from June 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned 00 won to Defendant Park Jong-a at the rate of 24 months of the loan period, 8.13% of the agreed interest rate, and 18.13% of the delay compensation rate.

B. On March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff, as the creditor against Defendant Park Jong-a, received KRW 200 million from Defendant Park Jong-a with the claim for the lease deposit of KRW 200 million against Nonparty Ba, and on April 23, 2010, the largests accepted the said assignment of claim without any objection, with the approval of the fixed date of the notary Kimd office of notary public Kimd on April 23, 2010.

C. The obligation to the above lease deposit against Defendant Park Jong-a was seized on the ground that he had a claim of KRW 0,000 against Defendant Park Jong-a, and the above notification of seizure reached sss on August 7, 2013.

D. On January 22, 2015, the largests made a mixed deposit of KRW 000 on the grounds of the competition between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Park Jong-a as the principal deposit on the grounds of the existence of creditors and the seizure of claims, etc. by Suwon District Court No. 808 in Suwon District Court in 2015 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

Defendant Park Jong-a: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

0. Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7, and pleadings

The purport of the whole

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts of recognition, the attachment of the obligation to collect delinquent local taxes against Defendant Park Jong-a is effective since all of the lease claims against Defendant Park Jong-a and all of the lease claims against Defendant Park Jong-a were transferred and met the requisite to set up against them. Therefore, among the instant deposit claims, the right to claim the payment of deposit money calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from June 30, 2015 to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation against the Plaintiff, who is the original creditor, and the Defendant Park Jong-a and other creditors, the original creditor, to claim the payment of deposit money.

3. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that: (a) Defendant Republic of Korea’s taxation claims priority the Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; (b) Defendant Republic of Korea’s taxation claims shall take precedence over the Plaintiff’s claims with respect to the remainder excluding KRW 00,00,000, which is the principal of the Plaintiff’s loan deposit; (c) Defendant Republic of Korea’s taxation claims shall take precedence over the Plaintiff’s claims; and (d) there is no fixed date under the apartment lease agreement (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff; and (e) Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim for payment of deposit money should be recognized within the scope of the amount recognized as the lessee’s priority repayment right under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act out of the actual loan amount. Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act apply only to the case of determining the priority of the secured right and the claim for return of deposit money with respect to the real estate where the obligor’s claims against the third party obligor were transferred to a third party and extinguished, barring special circumstances.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the written consent (Evidence A No. 4) submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be set up against a third party. However, as seen earlier, the highests consented to the assignment of claims with a certificate with a fixed date, and the above consent has an opposing power against the third party pursuant to Article 450(2) of the Civil Act, the above assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.