Whether the rejection disposition of cancellation of attachment is legitimate

Considering that the status of the property of the delinquent taxpayer, criminal facts and economic ability of the delinquent taxpayer, statements by related persons, the details of issuance of convertible bonds, and English initial of the person to whom the loan belongs is the delinquent taxpayer, each claim appears to be the property of the delinquent taxpayer and its premise is legitimate.

Article 41 (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

Article 53 (Requirements for Release of Attachment)

1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office, Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, and Defendant ○ Head of the tax office is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the director of the regional tax office of defendant ○○ is dismissed.

3. The costs incurred after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim and appeal against Defendant ○○○ Tax Office, Defendant ○○ Tax Office, Defendant ○○ Tax Office, Defendant ○○ Tax Office, and Defendant ○○ Tax Office: The judgment of the first instance is revoked. As to the Plaintiff, each of the dispositions against Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s refusal to cancel attachment on November 25, 2005 by Defendant ○○ Tax Office, Defendant ○○ Tax Office on August 5, 2004 by Defendant ○○ Tax Office on July 27, 2004 by Defendant ○○ Tax Office, respectively.

2. Claim against Defendant ○○○ director of the regional tax office: on July 5, 2004 (the correction of claim appears to have been written in writing as of July 8, 2004) the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○○○○ (the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the original director of the regional tax office seeking cancellation of the cancellation of attachment as of August 7, 2004 against the original director of the regional tax office, but the court of first instance changed the claim against Defendant ○○○ director of the regional tax office for cancellation of the cancellation of attachment as of August 8, 2004, after having received a ruling of dismissal as of its part and obtained the permission of correction from the court of first instance, and then sought revocation of the cancellation of attachment

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows, with the exception of the amendments to or additions to the following 2. Paragraph (2) above, and thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Any alteration or addition;

(1) No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is followed by the 4th page of the judgment, and the director of the regional tax office of defendant ○○ was dismissed on July 5, 2004 from the application for cancellation of this case (hereinafter "the five disposition in this case").

B. From the first instance court's 4th to 6th, the first instance court's 4th 20th 1th 6th 1th 1th 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 79999999.

C. After the first instance court’s decision No. 6, 7, “it is unlawful” (the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s claim against the third party, and the seized claim against the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s claim against the third party, and thus, it cannot be seized based on the disposition on default against the Plaintiff’s claim against the third party, and each of the instant dispositions is unlawful. However, as seen earlier by the person to whom each of the instant claims actually accrued, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that each of the instant claims is the Plaintiff is without merit) is added.

(d) To delete from column 5 through 9 of the judgment of the first instance.

E. On the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, “○○ 600 million won” in the 9th judgment of the court of first instance, following the 9th "(No. 51 evidence of this case)" (No. 51) stated that “○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.”).

F. On the 8th page "3 billion won for ○○ Development Co., Ltd.", the 3 billion won following the 10th page "(the 000 billion won is a corporation established on December 18, 1996, and the representative director on the register is a ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. established on December 18, 1996, where the location of the plaintiff or the office is located in the 1992. The main business of ○○ Development Co., Ltd. is the sales business of officetels constructed by ○○ Construction, ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., an employee of ○○ Development Co., Ltd., ○○○○, an employee of ○○ Development Co., Ltd., and deposits the ○○○○’s money into the account of ○○ Development Co., Ltd., the ○○○ seems to be the actual

G. On the 9th page 5, the statement that ○○ Development stated that ○○○ was known, and most of the creditors who acquired ○○ Development’s bonds were made as employees of ○○ Construction, and because the passbook deposited in the repayment of the bonds was made on the same day, the actual creditors of the above bonds are considered to be ○○, and the Plaintiff, ○○, and ○○, naturally known the Plaintiff as ○○○’s agent in the process of dividing conversationss.

아. 제9면 제6행부터 제10행까지를 "(10) 원고는 1999. 5. 24. ○○신용금고로부터 ○○프라자 801호를 (○○개발 소유였는데 원고가 그 취득경위나 취득 자금, 매매계약서등에 대하여 자료를 제출하지 아니하고, 위 801호에 설정됭 있던 근저당권상의 피담보채무를 인수하면서 매매대금으로 5천~6천 만 원을 지급하였다고 주장한다) 담보로 대출받은 947,703,823원과 ○○개발 주식회사의 예금통장에 입금된 금원을 합하여 ○○창투가 1999. 5. 31. 이 사건 전환사채를 인수하는데 담보로 제공된 수익증권을 매수하였다."로 고쳐 쓴다.

I. From 10th to 9th of the first0th of the 6th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 6th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 00th of the 00th of the 0th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 00th of the 0th of the 00th of the 199.

(j) On the 14th page 11, "each entry of evidence Nos. 22", followed by "Nos. 11, 15, and 16, "No. 20 to Gap evidence No. 23, Gap evidence No. 25, Gap evidence No. 48, Gap evidence No. 49, Gap evidence No. 59, Gap evidence No. 60, Gap evidence No. 63, each entry of No. 63, the first instance court witness No. ○○, and part of Park○-○'s testimony."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○ Head of ○, the defendant ○○ Head of ○○ Tax Office, the defendant ○○ Head of ○○ Tax Office, and the defendant ○○ Head of ○○ Tax Office shall be dismissed in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, all appeals against the above defendants are dismissed in its entirety, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○ Head of ○○ Tax Office