1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as admitting the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The plaintiff asserts as follows.

The Plaintiff, who purchased the instant real estate, does not constitute the direct counterpart or taxpayer of the reply of the Commissioner of the Central Regional Tax Office, but upon the Plaintiff’s request from At T&S, requested the Central Tax Office to verify the amount of delinquent local taxes. Since the Plaintiff’s purpose was to release the seizure of the instant real estate after the payment of delinquent local taxes, the Plaintiff is the subject of trust in the reply of the Central Tax Office.

In addition, it should be deemed that the director of the Central Regional Tax Office indirectly expressed the view that the reply to the amount in arrears made by the director of the Central Tax Office to A T&S would cancel the seizure when he pays the amount in arrears. The Plaintiff was transferred the real estate title by trusting the reply from the director of the Central Tax Office to E&S and the promise to pay the amount in arrears, and the Plaintiff did not cause the transfer of the real estate title by trusting the Defendant’s statement of opinion.

Therefore, the instant disposition that rejected the request for cancellation of attachment should be revoked as it is illegal.

On the other hand, as recognized by the first instance judgment cited by this Court, the Plaintiff does not fall under the counter-party to the reply of arrears issued by the director of the Central Tax Office or the "taxpayer", and the act of notifying the confirmation of the amount in arrears is merely merely a mere fact that does not involve any legal effect, and it does not constitute a public opinion statement.

The plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff also has the secondary regional tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant.