1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion completed three identical registrations of seizure as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff. Since delinquent taxes, which caused each of the above registrations, were extinguished by prescription, or are extinguished after five years have elapsed since they were notified of taxes, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above registrations to the plaintiff.

2. As the statute of limitations for the right to collect the national tax ceases to exist when there exists “a seizure” (Article 28(1)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s tax claim against the Plaintiff was interrupted when each seizure registration, such as the written claim stated in the purport of the claim, has been completed. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the statute of limitations expired, contrary to

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant is recognized as having made a disposition of deficits on claims equivalent to KRW 198,933,510, such as global income tax and value-added tax, against the plaintiff (as stated in the above claim of attachment, each of the registration of seizure completed by the Seoul Central District Court No. 6558, Mar. 4, 1998, and No. 1713, Jan. 15, 200, the registration of seizure completed by the registration office No. 1713, which was completed by the registration office of Seoul Central District Court No. 6558, Mar. 4, 1998, appears to have been completed in order to execute the above disposition of deficits, and the registration of seizure completed by the receipt office No. 13004, Jul. 13, 2017 is deemed to have not yet been subject to a disposition of deficits). However, even if the tax liability of the plaintiff was extinguished after the amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it was excluded from the above disposition of deficits.

Therefore, the plaintiff.