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

A. On January 8, 2002, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Park Jong-young with Jeju District Court 2001Da19850, and on January 8, 2002, the plaintiff was sentenced to five percent per annum from October 23, 2001 to November 22, 2001, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the same day. The judgment became final and conclusive. (B) The plaintiff did not request a compulsory auction as to the above ○○○○○○○○-dong 792-1 and 2 lots of land, which were owned by ○○○○○○○-dong 19850, and the plaintiff did not receive the payment of national taxes from 00,000 won to 40,000 won, and the plaintiff did not receive the payment of national taxes from 160,0000 won to 40,0000 won. (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case").

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as the claims of the defendants have expired by prescription.

B. Determination

(i)General theory

The extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes or local taxes is suspended for five years, or for the period during which the attachment of the property of a delinquent taxpayer is in existence (see Article 28(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 30-6(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act). Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the attachment of real estate, etc. under Article 45 of the same Act shall also have effect on any delinquent amount of national taxes, the statutory due date of which comes before the transfer of the ownership of the relevant attached property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11848, Dec. 14, 2007).

d. As to the taxation claims of Defendant Republic of Korea

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2 of Eul, and 3-2 of Eul, the defendant Republic of Korea seized the so-called so-called "is-called 1, 1997" on Oct. 15, 1997, based on the national tax credit listed in No. 1 or 4 of the attached Table 1, and the seizure remains valid until now.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the interruption of prescription against all the national tax claims stated in the attached Table 1 list has been effective, and the plaintiff's assertion against the Republic of Korea is without merit.

【Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s Tax Claim

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul's evidence No. 1, Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province attached No. 1 or No. 5 on October 26, 2001, based on the local tax claim indicated in attached Table 2 No. 1 or No. 5, seized vehicles 2 or No. 2425 on October 26, 201, and such seizure was revoked on July 13, 2006.

Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the interruption of prescription became effective until the seizure of all the local tax claims indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto was cancelled, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is without merit, since five years have not elapsed thereafter.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.