A. Defendant A performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage completed on February 23, 2005 by Changwon District Court No. 14151, Feb. 23, 2005;

B. The defendant Republic of Korea indicates his/her intention of acceptance on the above cancellation registration.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The order is as follows (the plaintiff requested the cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the site ownership of the real estate listed in the attached list, but it seems to be erroneous that the site ownership is the object of a collateral security).

As to the instant real estate indicated in the attached list, Defendant A had completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 81,90,000,000 for the maximum debt amount as indicated in the attached list No. 1 of February 23, 2005 (excluding the right to a site, excluding the section for exclusive use), as to the instant real estate, as indicated in the attached list No. 1 of this case, Defendant A had completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amounting to KRW 81,90,00 (excluding the right to a site), Defendant A had defaulted on national taxes by Defendant A under the National Tax Collection Act, and Defendant A attached the above mortgage claim on November 22, 2012 pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act, and entrusted the registration of the attachment to the registry office on November 26, 2012 by attaching

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Claim against Defendant A

The plaintiff asserts that the above right to collateral security has expired after the lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations from February 22, 2005. The above defendant shall be deemed to have led to confession. Therefore, the above defendant has the duty to cancel the registration of establishment of the above right to collateral security against the plaintiff.

B. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

The plaintiff asserts that the seizure is null and void, since the above defendant did not notify the plaintiff et al. of the seizure under the National Tax Collection Act, which is the third debtor, as the ground for the claim against the defendant in this case.

Therefore, according to Articles 29, 41, and 42 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11605, Jan. 1, 2013), when a tax official seizes a delinquent taxpayer's property under the above Act, he/she shall prepare a attachment report and notify the third party obligor of the attachment. The effect of the attachment of the claim shall arise when the above attachment notice is served on the third party obligor. Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) provides that delivery of documents related to the order of the Government in accordance with the disposition on default shall be made by mail. Meanwhile, according to Articles 25 and 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 304, Dec. 14, 2012), the head of the competent tax office shall prepare a new attachment report stating that the delinquent taxpayer's property is subject to the attachment notice, and the obligor's notice of attachment.

However, in No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, which the Republic of Korea submitted to the plaintiff, the name, address, resident registration number of the creditor, the plaintiff's name, address, date of birth, and enforcement date of the plaintiff, who is the debtor, are not indicated in the document No. 3-1 of the notification of seizure to the plaintiff, and the document No. 3-1 of the notification of seizure is written only in the public box, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e. g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., c).

Therefore, the above evidence submitted by the defendant Republic of Korea alone cannot be deemed to have been served on the third debtor, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, so the above seizure shall be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit. Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent on the registration of cancellation of

3. Conclusion

As above, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.