1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant case shall be remanded to the Seoul Central District Court ( single judge).

purport, purport, and.

1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in the evidence No. B No. 3, by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings:

Plaintiff

In the Seoul Central District Court B and C (Dual) case of the application for compulsory auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”), the above court opened a date of distribution on April 20, 2016, and prepared a distribution schedule containing the distribution of KRW 170,000,00 and KRW 37,153,649 to E, a creditor who applied for the instant auction, who is a seizure authority, as the creditor of the instant auction.

B. The Plaintiff, as the debtor and the owner, appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated that there was an objection against the total amount of dividends against the applicant creditor E and seizure right holder’s “Reception of tax affairs”, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant distribution by indicating the Defendant as “Reclution of tax affairs” on April 27, 2016, within seven days thereafter.

C. On May 10, 2016, the first instance court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the following: “After confirming the Defendant’s eligibility as a party, the submission of an application for correcting the indication of the party (the ordinary tax office is not a party, and the Republic of Korea is a party).”

On November 10, 2016, the first instance court closed the pleading on the date of first pleading, and rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on November 17, 2016 on the ground that the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution was filed against “a reverse third party secretary” with no capacity to be a party, and was unlawful.

E. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance. On May 25, 2017, the court of the first instance rendered an order of correction on May 25, 2017, stating that “The Regional Tax Service or the National Tax Service has no capacity to do so and applies for correction of a party indication to correct the Defendant’s indication to the Republic of Korea.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for correction of a party indication on June 9, 2017, and the instant Defendant’s indication was corrected to “Korea”.

2. Determination

(a)the party has mistakenly indicated a person incapable of being a party;