This case's seizure disposition was a disposition under public law, which was taken as a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, between the defendant who is the creditor and the limited partnership company which is the debtor, and therefore, if the above debtor asserts the illegality or illegality of the disposition and seeks its revocation, it shall be identical to the original decision. This case's case's case's case's claim that the claim attached by the above disposition can be filed only after going through the three-stage objection procedure under the National Tax Collection Act's request for the National Tax Collection Act's rejection. It is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition is a lawsuit seeking revocation by asserting the invalidity of the disposition under the premise that it was not the above limited partnership company's business operator, but the plaintiff's claim was its own claim (if the fact is denied, the claim for objection should be dismissed). Thus, it cannot be said that the original decision was unlawful by concluding that the plaintiff did not go through the three-stage objection procedure prior to the plaintiff's request for objection, and thus, it is not erroneous in the conclusion of the judgment.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu