1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff failed to pay the national tax of KRW 50,734,430, and the Republic of Korea, the Defendant’s disposition authority, seized real estate indicated in the attached list due to a disposition on default and completed the registration of seizure of the claim.

B. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a decision to authorize the repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedure of the Seoul Central District Court (2012 Session 197866) and the national tax claim was set as the individual rehabilitation claim with priority in the above case.

C. The Defendant’s seizure disposition constitutes a compulsory execution based on the above national tax claim, which is an individual rehabilitation claim, and thus, loses its effect under Article 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the registration of seizure of this case, which is completed based on the invalid seizure disposition,

2. When a decision to authorize a repayment plan is made in the individual rehabilitation procedure, compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition based on individual rehabilitation claims shall lose its effect (Article 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). However, the Defendant’s seizure disposition following the default of national taxes does not constitute compulsory execution under the foregoing Act, and thus, the decision to authorize the repayment plan against the Plaintiff was rendered in the individual rehabilitation procedure.

Even if it is not effective, it does not lose its effect.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the fact that the defendant's seizure disposition has lost its effect due to the decision to authorize the repayment plan is not reasonable in itself, and it is so decided as per Disposition.