2. On February 3, 2014, the director of the Ansan Tax Office belongs to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2014.

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this case is the same as the judgment of the first instance).

A. The plaintiff's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the third party 9 to 13). Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The main text of Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides, “When a decision is made to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan, the debtor shall be exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except for the rights recognized under the rehabilitation plan or this Act, and the rights of shareholders and equity right holders and all security rights in the debtor’s property shall be extinguished.” The tax imposition disposition is a tax administrative act that generates specific taxation claims that involve the right to self-performance of the right to collect delinquent taxes, etc., even though the tax claims are abstractly established prior to the commencement decision of the individual rehabilitation procedure, in cases where the rehabilitation plan is decided without reporting the tax claims specifically determined by the future tax disposition as rehabilitation claims and without reporting them as rehabilitation claims, the tax authority shall not exercise the right to impose taxes pursuant to the above provisions, and therefore, the tax imposition disposition after the completion of the right to impose taxes after the completion of the right to impose taxes is illegal and clear.