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

On October 11, 2005, the defendant confirmed that each attachment disposition against the deposit claims listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiff is null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

A. On the 6th page 5, the phrase “shall not be” is as follows.

【Unless there is a separate provision on the application of Article 39 of the revised Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 1 of the Addenda of the revised Framework Act on National Taxes only provides that this Act shall enter into force on January 1, 1999, and the defendant’s argument that Article 39 of the revised Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply is without merit.

(b)On the 6th page, the following shall be added:

In addition, Article 47 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that "the decision of unconstitutionality of a law shall bind all the State agencies and local governments" and Article 75 (1) of the same Act provides that "the decision of unconstitutionality of a law shall bind all the State agencies and local governments." This provision shall not only respect the decision of unconstitutionality when any disposition is made in the future according to the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court, but also interpret that all the State agencies impose a duty not to exercise the same public authority based on the same reason under the same circumstances as the subject of the decision of unconstitutionality, as well as the subject of the decision of unconstitutionality, and the harmony between the protection of rights and legal stability of the people due to the decision of unconstitutionality, after the decision of unconstitutionality, it shall not leave the status of the application of the unconstitutional law in terms of the protection of rights of the people or make any additional action of the State for the enforcement of the unconstitutional law, which is the final decision of unconstitutionality of a law." Article 203 (2) of the Constitutional Court decision of this case where there is no need to seize 20.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable for all of the plaintiff's claims, and all of the defendant's appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges, equipment (Presiding Judge)