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

A. The Plaintiff did not pay global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 imposed as the payment period on April 30, 1999 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”).

B. On May 25, 199, the Defendant: (a) seized the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 2 Dong 805, the Plaintiff owned on May 25, 199; (b) but (c) released the attachment on January 10, 2006 that the Plaintiff would pay the delinquent amount in full by February 10, 2006.

C. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again issued the instant disposition on February 20, 2006, which attached the Plaintiff’s B apartment A, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was owned by the Plaintiff, No. 611.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 16 and Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including above number)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion passed five years from 1999, the Plaintiff’s right to collect the global income tax of this case, the instant disposition was unlawful since it had already been made after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national tax.

(b) Any right of the State to collect national taxes shall be extinguished by prescription, if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is exercisable.

Article 28 (Interruption and Suspension of Prescription) (1) The extinctive prescription under Article 27 shall be interrupted by any of the following causes:

1. A tax payment notice;

2. Urging or demand for payment;

3. Request for delivery;

4. Seizure (2) The extinctive prescription interrupted under paragraph (1) shall begin to run anew when the period falling under any of the following subparagraphs expires:

1. Period of payment notified;

2. Period fixed by urging or demand notice of payment;

3. Period specified in the request for delivery;

4. Period until seizure is cancelled.

C. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s global income tax of this case, the payment period of which was April 30, 199, was the global income tax of this case, which was the date of the Plaintiff’s attachment on May 25, 199, but revoked the attachment on January 10, 2006, and thus, the right to collect the global income tax of this case.