1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 7, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred, on September 24, 1993, a parcel of land, other than 418 square meters, located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do; and (b) one parcel of land, other than 1,974 square meters, located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si; (c) on December 31, 1995, the Defendant imposed KRW 26,763,580 on the Plaintiff as the payment deadline.

(hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”). B.

On March 4, 1996, when the Plaintiff did not pay the said capital gains tax, the Defendant seized B large 134 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s main defense against the conjunctive claim among the instant lawsuit

A. On September 12, 1998, the Plaintiff paid all the capital gains tax notified by the employee in charge of the Defendant, and applied for the cancellation of attachment on the instant land. Although such capital gains tax constitutes a cause of cancellation of attachment due to write-off, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for cancellation of attachment by giving notice of public auction on August 28, 2015, 199 years after the date of application for cancellation of attachment. Thus, the Defendant sought revocation of the cancellation of attachment.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 evidence, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 158,740 of the capital gains tax to the Defendant on September 12, 1998, and that the Defendant sent a notice of pre-announcement of public auction to the Plaintiff on August 28, 2015 on the ground that capital gains tax of KRW 47,212,620 is still in arrears with the Plaintiff on August 28, 2015.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff applied for the cancellation of attachment on the land of this case to the defendant on September 12, 1998, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the notice of scheduled public auction is notified by the head of a tax office that the real estate subject to the future public auction will be sold.