1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances and facts of the disposition;

A. On June 18, 2014, the competent Seocho-si Mayor seized (hereinafter “instant seizure”) land B, C, D, and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by A on the grounds of delinquent local taxes of A, and on September 21, 2015, requested the Defendant to vicariously sell the instant real estate on behalf of the Defendant for a total of KRW 160,638,090 as delinquent local taxes.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a public auction notice on October 28, 2015, and issued a public auction notice to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of the instant real estate, on December 7, 2015. The public auction notice was written in total amount of KRW 160,638,090.

C. Upon the sale of the instant real estate and the payment of the sale price on February 29, 2016, the Defendant prepared a distribution statement to distribute KRW 2,601,042,550, which was distributed on March 30, 2016 (the sales price of KRW 2,600,000,000,000, plus KRW 1,042,550) to KRW 39,679,200, out of the remainder of the amount excluding KRW 39,679,20,00,000, the remainder of the amount excluding KRW 211,30,300,000 from the remainder of the amount of KRW 2,342,562,950 to the Plaintiff in the order of priority 4.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case", and the detailed details of the distribution statement are as shown in attached Table 1).

Accordingly, on the same day, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the amount of delinquent property tax (the relevant tax) of the regular amount of the property tax (the relevant tax) distributed at the beginning of the distribution statement on September 2015, 2015, and filed an objection with the competent early Mayor, but the competent early Mayor was dismissed on May 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition, which was added after December 7, 2015, which was the closing date of the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution, was a delinquent amount related to the attached property before and after September 7, 2015, which was the date of the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution, was attached to the attached property.