2. The plaintiff's defendant B, and .

A. On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff, under Defendant C’s joint and several sureties, lent KRW 300 million to the Defendant Company at an annual interest rate of 8% per annum and due date of payment on March 16, 2011.

B. Defendant C shared 1/2 shares of his wife E and the instant real estate (at that time, Defendant C was the only property of Defendant C), and on April 19, 201, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate based on the instant sales contract with respect to each of the said shares.

C. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor sent a notice to the said Defendants that the Plaintiff’s tax claim is the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned loan claim against the Defendant Company and the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) was seized pursuant to Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and served on October 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3, 8, Byung evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant Company and Defendant C

A. If there exists a seizure and collection order on the plaintiff's ex officio judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the third debtor, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

The same applies to cases where the State attaches a claim against a third party obligor due to the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, inasmuch as an intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff seized the Plaintiff’s instant loan claims against the Defendant Company and Defendant C due to the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff lost its standing to file a performance suit against the said Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit against the said Defendants is unlawful.

(b).