1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From March 31, 2007 to August 6, 2010, the director of the regional tax office imposed a total of KRW 877,655,960, including global income tax, on the Plaintiff as shown in attached Table 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant national tax”), and the Plaintiff did not pay it.

B. As of August 9, 2018, the Plaintiff’s delinquent tax amount of KRW 1,534,169,870 (i.e., comprehensive real estate holding tax of KRW 2,550,050) (i.e., KRW 1,531,08,084,150) reaches securities transaction tax of KRW 535,670.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The obligation to pay the national tax of this case on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not exist since the five-year extinctive prescription expires, thus seeking confirmation of the absence thereof.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Determination 1) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same applies)

According to Articles 26 subparag. 3 and 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised within five years from the time it can be exercised, the extinctive prescription expires, and if the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes expires, the obligation to pay national taxes is also extinguished. However, according to Articles 28(1)4 and 28(2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes is interrupted for a period until the seizure is cancelled due to the seizure, and thereafter begin to run anew. 2) There is no dispute between the parties, or the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of arguments in the items as stated in

A) On June 10, 201, the Defendant collected the amount of delinquent national tax of the instant case from the Plaintiff’s bank account (including the amount to be deposited in the present and future account; hereinafter “instant deposit claim”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s bank account (Account Number C).

A) Insurance contracts for companies and D companies (certificate Nos. 3: the Defendant seized claims for D’s No. 2 and 5. However, according to the evidence No. 2 and 5.