1. The plaintiffs' primary claim and conjunctive claim against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C received, on September 13, 1994, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1,450,000 won with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1,450,000 won, and on February 14, 1996, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, which was completed as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1,420,000 won, respectively.

B. The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the head of Gangnam-gu Office) seized the instant land based on the taxation claims against D on August 8, 1987.

C. Defendant Young-si (hereinafter “Defendant Young-si”) imposed tax on D by deeming that D is an oligopolistic shareholder of E and secondary tax liability in relation to each of the following taxes in arrears by Defendant Young-si (hereinafter “E”), and seized the instant land on November 15, 199.

The sum of additional dues on the aggregate land tax of 197,878,270 on October 10, 1994 F. F. 12,56,060 on 01 October 1996 on the aggregate land tax of 197,878,270 on 1994; 310,44,30 on 310,444,330 on 195 G. 1995 03,890 on 143,180 on 67,070,070 on 1995 H. 195 on 143,140,080 on 140,217, 250, 253, 357, 260 on 195 on 10,198, 198, 194 on 140,198

D. C’s death on February 27, 2009, upon which the Plaintiffs succeeded to C’s property.

E. Around 2012, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City requested Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation to sell the instant land by public auction.

Defendant Young-si requested the issuance of each of the above tax claims in the above public sale procedure, and on September 25, 2014, Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation distributed the sale price of the instant land in the same manner as indicated in the attached calculation sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of each of the above claims by the plaintiffs, D is an oligopolistic shareholder of E.