On September 22, 2006, Puu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Puuu") entrusts five parcels, such as the wife B, C, D, E, F, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "C"), and its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the instant real estate"), (in addition to each of the above land and buildings on April 5, 2013, the combination of five parcels, such as the wife B, the wife B, D, E, E, and F, which were owned by it, into a multi-company real estate trust (hereinafter referred to as "trust") (hereinafter referred to as "trust"), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future with respect to the instant real estate on the same day as the trust company (hereinafter referred to as "the instant trust").

On July 1, 201, the Defendant seized the above real estate (hereinafter “instant seizure”) on July 1, 201 and completed the registration of its seizure, on the ground that Quhu did not pay resident tax, acquisition tax, etc. on the instant real estate.

On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from a trust company and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 179,741,480 (hereinafter “tax amount in arrears”) in the name of the Plaintiff, and cancelled the registration of seizure.

Of the instant tax in arrears, the amount of taxes attributed to the Defendant is KRW 106,178,290 in total, including resident tax, automobile tax, business place tax, local income tax, etc., the amount of taxes attributed to the Intervenor joining the Defendant is KRW 72,630,350 in total, including acquisition tax, registration and license tax, local education tax, local education tax, and local resource and facility tax, and the amount of taxes attributed to the Republic of Korea

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1-3, Eul’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 1-2, Eul’s evidence 2-1 through 13, Eul’s evidence 1-2-1 through 13, Eul’s evidence 1-1, and judgment as to the ground for claim of the whole of the pleadings, and the disposition for arrears as to the validity of the seizure of this case’s disposition for arrears, which provides for the requirements for seizure, are examined in any case or in any case.