1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 201, the Plaintiff engaged in real estate leasing business under the trade name of “E”: (a) on June 21, 2011, the Plaintiff leased to Defendant B the F building located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, KRW 101,00,000,000 for deposit money; (b) on July 18, 2011, KRW 1730,000 for monthly rent (payment on the last day of each month); (c) on July 18, 2011, KRW 60,000 for deposit money; and (d) on July 102, 201, KRW 277,00 for monthly rent (payment on the last day of each month); and (d) on July 18, 2011, each of them leased to Defendant B, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Defendant B, the leased object, “I” of the above Nos. 101 and 102, operated a restaurant in its trade name, and completed business registration in its name on the basis of the trade name and location of the above.

(J) Business Registration Number J. c.

On April 18, 2013, the director of the tax office of distribution seized the amount of national tax in arrears (including increased additional charges and disposition fees for arrears added to the future) among the obligations that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Plaintiff (E) on the ground that “the Plaintiff is delinquent in the aggregate of KRW 1,412,113,160 for global income tax in 2012 and 2013” under Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act (hereinafter “instant attachment”). The instant attachment notice was served to Defendant B around that time.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The attachment of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits an obligee and obligor subject to attachment from all acts of disposal, such as repayment and collection of claims, and makes collection possible on behalf of a delinquent taxpayer. Thus, the garnishee cannot repay claims subject to attachment to the delinquent taxpayer, and only can it be performed to the country that is the collection authority.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 delivered on May 14, 1999), and National Tax Collection Act.