1. On July 11, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application to cancel the attachment of real estate indicated in the attached list.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 29, 201, the Defendant issued a corrective order under Article 79 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11998, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Building Act”) with respect to B, on the ground that a building without permission is constructed on the land, other than Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, and three parcels of land owned by B, the Defendant issued a voluntary improvement order, such as voluntary removal and restoration to the original state, by November 4, 2011. B issued the second corrective order on November 8, 201, when B failed to comply with the said corrective order, and issued a three-dimensional corrective order and a notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on December 8, 2011; B continued to impose a non-compliance penalty amounting to KRW 256,594,150 on Apr. 4, 2012.

(B) The enforcement fine of this case is “instant enforcement fine,” and the said disposition is imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing enforcement fine”).

The Defendant seized on March 8, 2013 the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned on B (hereinafter “instant seizure”) and accordingly, the registration of seizure was completed on March 13, 2013 with the Seoul Southern District Court’s receipt of No. 10527 of receipt on March 13, 2013 (hereinafter “instant seizure”).

C. However, as of September 27, 2013, B died on September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was a dependent of B following the agreement on the division of inherited property among co-inheritors, inherited the instant real estate alone.

In Seoul Western District Court in 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District Court seeking implementation of the procedure for the cancellation registration of the instant seizure registration. On June 20, 2018, the Seoul Western District Court duly established the instant seizure on the premise that the instant seizure was subject to an independent disposition separate from the disposition imposing the enforcement fine of this case, on the premise that it is subject to the imposition of the enforcement fine of this case.