1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The fact that the plaintiff has a claim against the defendant for the purchase price of goods of KRW 113,294,200 may not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4.

However, in cases where a claim is seized due to the delinquency in payment of national taxes, the obligor cannot pay the obligation to the obligee and should pay it only to the competent tax official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2931, Jan. 17, 1989). Thus, the obligee cannot exercise the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2931, Jan. 17, 1989). If there exists a seizure and collection order, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888 Decided April 11, 200, etc.). According to each of the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 2 and the Plaintiff’s return to the instant case, the head of the Port Tax Office attached the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of national taxes of KRW 196,077,140 on November 10, 2016. The head of the Port Tax Office requested the Defendant to collect the above claim for the payment of the price of the goods on December 6, 2016. On December 23, 2016, the head of the Port Tax Office may recognize the fact that the head of the Port Tax Office urged the Defendant to pay the above claim for the payment of the price of goods by December 30, 2016.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff is deemed to lose his eligibility to file a performance lawsuit against the above claim for the price of goods. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is unlawful.