1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is currently owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, based on the tax authority on January 8, 1994 and July 24, 200, made a registration of seizure such as the entries in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “registration of seizure of this case”). Since the extinctive prescription of a tax claim that caused the above registration of seizure has expired, the procedure for registration of cancellation is sought.

2. According to the relevant provisions such as Article 45, Article 47, and Article 54 of the National Tax Collection Act, in order to cancel the registration of seizure and its registration of real estate as a disposition of national tax in arrears, the head of the competent tax office shall request the competent registration office to cancel the registration.

Therefore, the registration of seizure of this case by the plaintiff's assertion that it is obvious that it was conducted as part of the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act was extinguished due to the expiration of extinctive prescription, as alleged by the plaintiff, unless there are grounds for invalidation

Even if an administrative agency's cancellation of attachment and cancellation of attachment can be registered only by the entrustment of registration for cancellation attached to the report of cancellation of attachment, and if an administrative agency's request for registration of cancellation is filed for civil procedure, it is unlawful as it refers to seeking the cancellation of attachment disposition against

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 7Na7 delivered on April 14, 1977, etc.). 3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.