1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s argument at the court of the first instance to the following. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1 and 2 recommendation decision has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, and its content also recognizes the Plaintiff’s claim as a whole in addition to the concession of litigation costs. Therefore, it constitutes a “judgment in favor of the Plaintiff,” which is the requirement for the release of seizure under Article 53(1)3

B. Article 53(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the head of a tax office shall release the attachment in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs. Article 53(2) of the same Act provides that "when the third party acknowledges that the third party's claim on the ownership under Article 50 exists," subparagraph 3 provides that "when the third party proves that he/she has received a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit on the ownership against the delinquent taxpayer." However, all of the above provisions refer to cases where it is reasonable to argue that the property seized at the time of the attachment is owned by the third party or the fact that the property owned by the third party is owned

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3234 Decided February 14, 1997. Although the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment is granted to the decision of recommending a compromise, the decision of recommending a compromise has a creative effect, and if a compromise is made, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relationship is extinguished, and at the same time a new legal relationship arising from a judicial compromise is effectively formed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da29557, Apr. 10, 2014). In light of the nature of the said decision of recommending a compromise, it is difficult to deem that regulating the legal relationship “as at the time of seizure”

Therefore, it is true.