1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following facts shall be added to the fourth or lower judgment of the first instance.

E. The Plaintiff failed to pay the total amount of KRW 109,29,296,920, including wage and salary income tax, corporate tax, and value-added tax for the year 2014 and 2015 (the additional amount of KRW 75,582,650, the additional amount of KRW 33,714,270, and the additional amount of KRW 70,000). The head of Songpa District Tax Office notified the Defendant of the attachment and requested the collection of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground of the delinquency in payment of national taxes in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default as prescribed by the International Collection Act (Article 41, etc.). Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 72,01,978 to the Songpa District Office on July 2, 2019 upon the above notification and the request for collection.”

2. The grounds for this Court’s assertion and determination are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as follows. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

The following shall be added to the fourth decision of the court of first instance No. 19:

When a claim is seized and seized in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the head of a tax office shall obtain the right to collect the claim by subrogation of the obligee, who is the defaulted taxpayer, and the obligee, who is the defaulted taxpayer, cannot exercise the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2476, Apr. 12, 198). Pursuant to the above legal doctrine, prior to viewing the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case, the part of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, 7th to 8th to 13th of the judgment, stating that the Plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant and the scope thereof

D. According to the theory of lawsuit, the plaintiff is against the defendant.