2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by the participation.

Cheong-gu Office

On April 15, 2015, the Defendant revoked KRW 189,230 forO viewing among the distribution dispositions conducted in the public auction proceedings with respect to the shares of 1/3 of 56-7 forest land in POsi-dong, POsi-dong, POsi-dong, POsi-si, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant revoked KRW 90,086,821 for each and the Plaintiff allocate KRW 90,276,05

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) seized the Plaintiff’s 1/3 equity shares (hereinafter referred to as the “instant equity shares”) in the amount of delinquent taxpayer’s 56-7 m2 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) in OO-dong OO-dong OO on the ground of default on global income tax by UOO (hereinafter referred to as “delinquent”), and the Plaintiff provisionally seized the instant equity shares based on the Plaintiff’s claims against the delinquent taxpayer. Specific Intervenor’s seizure and provisional seizure details, and the establishment details of the right to collateral security regarding the instant equity shares are as listed below.

B. On May 2, 2014, the Intervenor requested the Defendant to conduct a public auction on the instant share amounting to KRW 736,172,450, total amount of 17 delinquent taxes, and the Defendant issued a public auction notice on July 16, 2014, and conducted a public auction procedure on the instant share (hereinafter “instant public auction procedure”), and the instant share was sold to the largestO on March 16, 2015.

C. On March 16, 2015, the Defendant’s distribution date for the proceeds of sale to creditors of the instant public auction procedure.

The notice was made on April 15, 2015, and the notice was given on March 30, 2015 that the request for distribution or the request for delivery was made.

D. The plaintiff and the intervenor et al. request the defendant to distribute or deliver to the defendant as shown in the following table:

The detailed details of the amount in arrears on the written request for the delivery submitted by the intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "amount in arrears of this case") are as shown in the attached Table.

E. On April 15, 2015, the Defendant allocated KRW 189,230 out of KRW 90,276,051 (including interest) the remainder after deducting KRW 3,306,910 from the public sale price of the instant shares from KRW 93,582,961 (including interest), which was 90,276,051, the Defendant distributed KRW 90,086,821 to the intervenors holding the instant claim in arrears (if the Intervenor’s above claim, the amount of KRW 71,350,080 corresponding to the amount of delinquent tax which is earlier than the statutory due date for the establishment of the instant right to collateral security was earlier than the statutory due date for the establishment of the instant local tax claim by the head of OOO, the Defendant distributed the amount of KRW 18,736,741 out of the amount equivalent to the amount of delinquent tax by the head of OOO to the Intervenor according to the seizure principle, and then distributed it to the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to the instant distribution statement).

F. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Intervenor on April 15, 2015, but was dismissed on May 12, 2015, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 6, 2015, but was dismissed on March 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 5 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the part demanding distribution of the proceeds of the public auction

The Plaintiff seeks to distribute the above KRW 90,276,051 to the Intervenor and the OO Mayor on the premise that the instant disposition that the Defendant intended to allocate KRW 90,276,051 in total is revoked.

ex officio, among the lawsuit in this case, a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to engage in a certain act under the current Administrative Litigation Act or a lawsuit seeking a formation judgment ordering an administrative agency to directly engage in an administrative disposition having the same effect as a certain administrative disposition is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 197). Of the lawsuit in this case, the part seeking a distribution of the proceeds of public auction is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(i) Chapter 1;

A) In light of Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act, which provides for the cancellation of auction when there is no prospect of remaining taxes, the intervenor seized the instant shares based on the delinquent amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of the tax amount in arrears of each of the above tax amount in global income

B) In addition, the Intervenor’s written request for the attachment of equity interest cannot be deemed to have served a tax payment notice of delinquent amount related to the attachment on the part of the defaulted taxpayer’s resident registration, and as a result, the delinquent amount related to the attachment was extinguished by the Do of the exclusion period for imposition. Thus, the Intervenor’s attachment of equity interest based on the above delinquent amount is null and void.

C) As above, the Intervenor’s seizure of the instant shares is null and void, the remainder of the amount of delinquent local taxes, other than the amount of delinquent local taxes related to the seizure of the instant shares, has expired as well.

(ii) Chapter 2;

Since the seizure of shares in this case constitutes the preservation seizure before the determination under Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the intervenor did not confirm the national tax to be collected by the seizure within three months from the time of seizure pursuant to Article 24(5) of the National Tax Collection Act. Therefore, even though the intervenor’s seizure of the shares in this case should be rescinded, the above seizure was conducted based on the above seizure.

(iii) Chapter 3;

The reason for taxation, tax base, additional dues, etc. related to the arrears amount of this case cannot be deemed to exist, and there exists any illegality or error in the calculation of the period and amount thereof. In addition, not only the request for public sale by proxy and the request for delivery submitted by the intervenor to the defendant is based on the delinquent amount of this case that cannot be deemed to actually exist, but also the above request for public sale by proxy and the request for delivery by proxy, which are not clearly stated the grounds for taxation and the grounds for taxation, but also cannot be trusted, such as the statutory due date and the tax year are partially omitted. Thus, the disposition of this case by the defendant based on the delinquent amount of this case and the

(iv) Chapter Four.

Although the Intervenor and the OO market did not request the Defendant to distribute the amount in arrears for which the Defendant requested to deliver by the deadline for requesting the distribution of the public auction procedure of this case, the instant disposition was taken according to the written request for delivery by the Intervenor and the O market.

(v) Chapter 5.

In the public sale procedure of this case, the intervenor's failure to submit evidentiary materials or to request the distribution of the share in this case confirmed the cancellation of the seizure of the share in this case. In addition, the intervenor recognized the extinction of the share in this case, which is the basis of the seizure of the share in this case, in the reply submitted by the tax trial procedure requested by the plaintiff. This is not only a confession of the extinction of the share in this case, but also a ratification of the cancellation of

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) As to the delinquent taxpayer’s share of 10,578/18,162 square meters of OOOO-gun OOOO-type OO-type OO-type O-type O-type, OO-type, the attachment registration was completed as listed below on the ground that the delinquent taxpayer’s share of 10,578/18,162 square meters (hereinafter “O-type land”) was delinquent in taxes, and the intervenor seized the delinquent taxpayer’s share based on the delinquent taxpayer’s share of tax amount Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 12 attached to the attached table.

2) On July 10, 1998, the head of theOO entrusted the Korea Asset Management Corporation with a public auction on the portion of the delinquent taxpayer in relation to the instant portion of land, and the public auction procedure (hereinafter “instant public auction procedure”) sold the said share to KimO on April 27, 199, and the registration of transfer was completed on July 5 of the same year. On the same day, the intervenor’s seizure on the said share was cancelled due to the said public auction.

3) On the other hand, the Intervenor’s two tax amount in arrears (hereinafter “the instant case”) in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 4 of each global income tax

Based on the attachment delinquent amount, the delinquent taxpayer's share of this case was seized.1)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5 through 8, Eul evidence 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

A) First, as to the assertion that the delinquent amount in arrears of the instant case was fully appropriated and extinguished from the proceeds from the sale of the instant OO sale procedure, the Intervenor seized the delinquent taxpayer’s share in the instant OOri land on September 23, 1995 on the ground that the delinquent taxpayer’s global income tax was delinquent on September 23, 1995, and the fact that the Intervenor’s attachment registration of the delinquent taxpayer’s share was cancelled on July 5, 1999 on the instant OOri auction procedure conducted by the Defendant at the latest request of the head of OOOO.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are ① It is difficult to deem that Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act applies to the public auction procedure pursuant to the disposition on default other than the compulsory execution procedure under the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49676, Oct. 26, 2006). Even if Article 102 of the Civil Execution Act applies to the public auction procedure, it is difficult to readily conclude that the intervenor’s claims for the seizure of this case were completely appropriated due to the lapse of the period of seizure under Article 47(1)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, solely on the ground that the intervenor’s public auction procedure for the portion of the O's land at the request of the junior seizure authority, and the obligor’s registration of the seizure thereof was cancelled. ② The appropriation of the amount of delinquent local taxes related to the O's public auction procedure held by the Intervenor is not verified even before the expiration of the statutory period of the ownership of this case.

B) Next, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff asserts that the burden of proving that the delinquent taxpayer’s payment notice, etc. was not served or unlawful in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case, which was conducted in the public sale procedure following the disposition of this case on the ground that the delinquent taxpayer’s delinquent amount has ceased to exist due to the excess of the exclusion period of imposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1260, Jun. 1, 2001). However, on the ground that the delinquent taxpayer’s address stated in the Intervenor’s document related to the seizure of the share of this case does not coincide with the delinquent taxpayer’s resident registration at the time, a tax notice related to the delinquent amount of the seizure of this case’s delinquent amount was issued to the delinquent taxpayer, and it is difficult to view that the seizure of the share of this case was invalidated or that the entire delinquent

C) Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s first proposal premised on the invalidity of the Intervenor’s seizure of the instant shares is without merit.

2) Determination on the second proposal

The facts that the Intervenor’s seizure of the instant shares was based on the delinquent amount of arrears of the instant case for which the time limit for payment has already expired are as seen above. As such, the Intervenor’s assertion in this part on the premise that the Intervenor’s seizure of the instant shares constitutes preservation seizure prior to the confirmation under Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, which was made without issuing a reminder, is without merit

3) Determination as to the third proposal

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the defendant conducted the public auction procedure of this case based on the intervenor's request for the public auction and the delivery request, and the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful by recognizing the intervenor's claim for the delinquent amount in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① Since the Intervenor does not keep the documents pertaining to the cause of taxation, tax base, additional dues, etc. as long as a considerable period of time has already elapsed from the time of the instant taxation disposition related to the arrears, it cannot be deemed that the said amount of delinquent taxes exists or that the taxation disposition was issued without any grounds

② Considering that the details of arrears related to the electronic data of the Intervenor are preserved in the computerized data of the Intervenor, and that there was a taxation disposition on a delinquent taxpayer according to the electronic data of the tax authority regarding the details of arrears, etc. according to the original taxation basic document, it is reasonable to deem that the computerized data of this case was lawfully calculated in accordance with the relevant Act (the additional tax amount is also deemed as legally calculated within the scope of 60 months pursuant to Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act). The circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are insufficient to deem that there was any error or error in calculating the amount of delinquent taxes on the computerized data. In this regard, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe that the computerized data of this case was falsified, but there is no circumstance and evidence to deem that there was no false computerized data, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion (the difference between the amount of delinquent taxes on the computerized data of this case and the amount of delinquent taxes on the request for public sale and the request for delivery submitted by the Intervenor).

(3) In addition, there was no objection or objection against the taxation disposition related to the delinquent amount in this case, and there was no objection or objection against the taxation disposition related to the delinquent amount in this case, even in the process of proceeding and ending the collection procedure of the delinquent amount in this case including the public sale procedure in this case, and thus, there was no objection as to the taxation disposition related to the delinquent amount in this case and its collection procedure. Thus, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion that is not

④ The written request for the public auction agency and the written request submitted by the intervenor to the defendant are deemed to be based on the computerized data of the intervenor related to the arrears amount in this case, and the reason for taxation and the written request for the public auction agency and delivery are not clearly stated in the above written request or are not properly indicated in the statutory date and the taxable year, etc., and it is difficult to deem the disposition in this case unlawful solely on the ground that the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff cannot trust the intervenor's delinquent amount in this case stated in each of the above documents or that the disposition in this case is unlawful (in addition, the plaintiff asserts that the authenticity of each document is not recognized because the plaintiff's official seal is not affixed on the written request for the public auction agency (Evidence No. 1) and the defendant's notice of the public auction (Evidence No. 2) and the notice of the distribution date (Evidence No. 3). However, the above alone

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant delinquent amount stated in the written request for the public sale by proxy of the Intervenor and the instant delinquent amount stated in the written request for the seizure by proxy of the Intervenor are different from each other, and it is difficult to believe the content of the written request for the public sale by proxy of the instant case and that the instant delinquent amount is null and void. However, the difference between the delinquent amount of the instant seizure by each of the said written documents is deemed to be due to the fact that there was a change in the delinquent amount due to the disposal by deficit, appropriation, receipt, or increase in additional dues during each time.

4) Determination as to Section 4

A) First, as to this part of the argument regarding the Intervenor, the Intervenor’s seizure of the instant shares based on the delinquent delinquent amount of the delinquent taxpayer’s attachment and the Defendant’s application for the public auction of the said shares is identical as seen earlier. As such, the Intervenor, the principal agent who applied for the public auction procedure of the instant case, is naturally participating in the distribution procedure of the instant public auction, and is not entitled to the distribution request by the deadline for the completion of the distribution request. Accordingly, this part of the allegation regarding the Intervenor’s Intervenor on different premise is without merit.

B) Next, as to this part of the argument relating to the O market, the health team, Gap No. 7-h.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 5-1 and 5-2, the amount in arrears of the property tax of the Defendant on March 30, 2015, which is the closing date of the request for distribution of the public auction procedure in this case by the O market.

Since it is recognized that a claim for the delivery of KRW 189,230 is filed, the O market acquired the legal status to receive the distribution amount equivalent to the above delinquent amount by the above request for delivery. Therefore, this part of the claim related to the prior plaintiff's O market is without merit.

5) Determination as to Chapter 5

A) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Intervenor’s failure to submit evidentiary materials or to demand the distribution of the instant shares during the instant public sale procedure is not effective. However, as seen above, the Intervenor appears to have lawfully received the instant shares in the instant public sale procedure based on the delinquent amount in arrears, and solely on the circumstances cited by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor did not have the validity of the seizure of the instant shares in the instant public sale procedure.

B) In addition, the Plaintiff acknowledged the extinguishment of the amount of delinquent local taxes, which served as the basis for the seizure of the instant equity, in the written reply submitted by the Intervenor in the tax proceeding, and it is alleged to the effect that the Intervenor voluntarily admitted the confession of the extinguishment of delinquent local taxes or the seizure of the instant equity, but it cannot be said that the Intervenor acknowledged the extinguishment of delinquent local taxes, which served as the basis for the seizure of the instant equity, through the written reply or that

C) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor did not perform the collection procedure prior to the payment period under Article 14(2) of the National Tax Collection Act with respect to the amount in arrears of the instant case, and that the Defendant did not clearly reply to the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the amount in arrears of the instant case and the Intervenor’s claim for the delivery of the instant amount in arrears also recognized that the seizure of the instant amount in arrears has no effect. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion also

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking a distribution of the proceeds of the public auction is unlawful, and it is dismissed as the remaining claims of the plaintiff are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.