1. It is against KRW 7,237,620 among the attachment dispositions against the claims listed in the separate sheet on November 3, 2004 by the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 200, the Plaintiff transferred 5 lots outside B and 5 lots (hereinafter “C-dong land”) to the competent tax office on January 11, 200, and did not report capital gains tax to the competent tax office.

B. On May 4, 200, the Plaintiff transferred D et al. and five parcels (hereinafter “Ei land”) on May 4, 200, and reported KRW 3,928,503 to the competent tax office, but did not pay the transfer income tax.

C. On March 5, 2001, the Defendant issued a tax payment notice (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) on KRW 4,621,768 (the Defendant denied the deduction of KRW 693,265,000 from the transfer income tax originally reported to the Plaintiff for the transfer of Eri land). The Defendant issued a tax payment notice stating the instant first disposition (hereinafter “instant first notice”).

On December 26, 2001, the Defendant served a tax payment notice (including additional tax) regarding capital gains tax of KRW 96,639,540 (including additional tax) from the transfer of land C Dong land on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant secondary disposition”). In addition to the instant first disposition, the Defendant served a tax payment notice stating the instant second disposition (hereinafter “instant second notice”).

E. On November 3, 2004, when the Plaintiff did not pay capital gains tax from each of the dispositions of this case, the Defendant issued a disposition to seize the claims indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff as preserved bonds with totaling KRW 7,237,620, etc. of capital gains tax and additional dues pursuant to the Disposition No. 1 of this case as preserved bonds (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was not served with the first notification of this case as well as the second notification of this case.

Therefore, since the disposition No. 1 of this case is null and void as a demand disposition, the attachment disposition of KRW 7,237,620, among the subsequent attachment disposition of this case, shall be deemed null and void, and the attachment disposition of this case shall be deemed null and void.