1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 1993, B, the Plaintiff’s external village, completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) on July 31, 1992 as a result of the inheritance by consultation and division. On July 26, 1999, B completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estates with the maximum debt amount of KRW 80,000,000, the debtor B, and the mortgagee C.

B. On April 16, 1999, the Defendant imposed 230,380 won of global income tax for 1996, global income tax for 1995, global income tax for 6,837,830 won for 195, and global income tax for 1996, and global income tax for 9,513,690 won for 196. When each of the above global income tax was delinquent, the Defendant seized each of the instant real estate for 22, 2001 (hereinafter “instant seizure”), and the registration of seizure was completed on February 26, 201.

C. B as of April 11, 2004, upon the death of each of the instant real estates, the ownership transfer registration for each of the instant real estates was completed on March 26, 2015 in the future D, E, and F (hereinafter “D, etc.”) on March 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estates due to sale on March 26, 2015.

On the other hand, on March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the attachment disposition against the Defendant as the Jeonju District Court 2013Guhap7555, by asserting the invalidation and revocation of the attachment of this case, but was ruled against January 15, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 4, 2014.

E. On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requesting the cancellation of attachment due to the suspension of a disposition on default on the grounds that the public sale of each of the instant real property is not profitable. On August 18, 2015, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on the ground that the instant case is a matter to be processed with the confirmation of facts, such as the existence of the amount of debt to the mortgage on each of the instant real property and the completion of extinctive prescription