1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2, 200, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office under the Defendant-based District Tax Office determined and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax for the year 1997 as the payment deadline of KRW 45,028,360, and December 31, 200 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). As of July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff failed to pay it by the payment deadline, the total amount of arrears, including additional dues, was KRW 79,700,170.

B. On July 11, 2013, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office collected KRW 81,647,250, total amount of KRW 79,70,170, and commission for public sale agency for the above delinquent amount of KRW 1,947,080 from the Plaintiff’s claim against B by seizing and collecting the Plaintiff’s claim against B (hereinafter “instant collection”).

(c) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the judgment on the main defense is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion: ① The statute of limitations of the right to impose and collect capital gains tax shall run from the next day of the statutory due date of payment; the statute of limitations of the right to impose and collect capital gains tax belonging to the year 1997 of this case shall run from June 1, 1998, which is the day following the due date of the due date of the final due date of return; ② Even if the statute of limitations runs from January 1, 2001, which is the day following the due date of payment set in the duty payment notice, even if the statute of limitations run from January 1, 2001, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had effectively seized the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name on October 20, 205; thus, the statute of limitations expired on December 31, 2005, the collection

On October 20, 2005, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the collection of this case is justifiable, since the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted by effectively seizing the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name.

B. Determination 1.