The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the attachment of a claim under the National Tax Collection Act, the preparation of the attachment report is merely a document evidencing the fact that the tax authority attached the relevant claim within the scope of the tax authority, and it cannot be deemed an effective requirement for the attachment of a claim (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do855, Aug. 21, 1984). Thus, the attachment report cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the attachment report was not prepared, but the attachment of a claim is based on the intrinsic purport of securing a tax claim by prohibiting the obligor from performing his/her obligation to the delinquent taxpayer (hereinafter “third obligor”). Thus, in light of the language and text of the attachment notification against the third obligor, the attachment of a claim is null and void unless the attachment claim is specified or the statement prohibiting the obligor from performing his/her obligation to the delinquent taxpayer is not stated.

(1) In order to impose a non-tax revenue on the Plaintiff, the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City basin head of the Gu, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to impose a non-tax revenue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Ma59, Nov. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 95Da41611, Apr. 22, 1997). In addition, according to the records, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, imposed a disposition imposing a non-tax revenue revenue, and imposing expenses for vicarious execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 28,709,980, Nov. 26, 197) on eight occasions during the period from April 23, 2012 to October 28, 2014, the Defendant, on Nov. 16, 2012, included the entry of the parking lot and the instant land management plan (see, e.g. 3).