1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 2, 2009, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name “C” and operated his/her printing business from Kimhae-si B, and was voluntarily closed by the head of the Kimhae-si on November 9, 2010.

B. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff defaulted on KRW 12,623,650, value-added tax, KRW 37,317,440, and KRW 49,941,090, the Defendant seized the insurance proceeds of the “Unborn Women’s Health Insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance”). On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff collected KRW 1,457,690 from the cancellation refund, and appropriated it for 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 received a loan of KRW 2,600,000 in advance, and the cancellation refund of the instant insurance was KRW 1,475,690.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 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”) of the Plaintiff’s assertion that a small financial property necessary for the maintenance of a delinquent taxpayer’s livelihood is determined as the insurance proceeds and refund money for cancellation of a security insurance, the amount of which is less than three million won, and which is prohibited from seizure.

Since small financial assets referred to in the above Act should be based on actual property, the amount of payment shall be interpreted as the amount corresponding to the refund for cancellation which is actually received at the time of cancellation.

Therefore, the defendant's act of seizing and collecting the insurance proceeds of this case, the cancellation refund of which is less than three million won, is unlawful. Thus, the defendant must return the cancellation refund of this case to the plaintiff 1,457,690 won.

B. Determination Doctrine, the former National Tax Collection Act.