1. The plaintiff shall dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit against Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

2. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,232,070 and this shall apply.

1. To make decisions ex officio prior to the merits.

Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Summary 1) Defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Jongno-gu”).

) The Seoul Jongno-gu E site and buildings owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”) due to Defendant B’s default on local taxes.

(2) In order to prevent the loss of the successful bid deposit paid in the public sale procedure on August 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for rejection of the sale due to the illegal expansion of Defendant B after receiving the successful bid of the instant real estate in KRW 402,79,99 on August 19, 2019. (2) As such, the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 13,232,070 on August 30, 2019 on behalf of Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff, and Defendant Jongno-gu is obligated to make a registration of seizure based on the seizure claim owned by Defendant Jongno-gu to the Plaintiff, who is the subrogation with legitimate repayment interest.

B. Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The legitimacy of a preliminary co-litigation is not compatible with the law,” which is the requirement of a preliminary co-litigation, means a relationship in which, on the other hand, the legal evaluation of the same facts is different, the two claims are deemed to have a legal effect against either of the two claims, and where both claims cannot be accepted due to the denial of the legal effect against the other, or where either of the two claims becomes a result of affirming or denying the legal effect by either of the facts or by the selective fact-finding that constitutes the cause of the claim, or the other party’s legal effect is denied or denying or opposing the other party’s legal effect. As such, the grounds for determining one claim may affect the other’s reasoning for determining the other claim, and thus, the process of determining each claim is necessarily mutually combined.