1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff, while the actual owner of the instant vehicle B, C, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant vehicle”) was the Plaintiff, sought a revocation of the attachment cancellation disposition regarding the instant vehicle on January 17, 2006 on the ground that the attachment disposition taken by the Defendant on January 17, 2006 against the instant vehicle was unlawful.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff applied for the cancellation of attachment of the instant vehicle to the Defendant, and the Defendant expressed his intent to refuse the said request. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is subject to a disposition that does not exist.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.