The seizure disposition by the defendant following the delinquency in national taxes shall not constitute compulsory execution as referred to in the above Act.

Since the Defendant’s attachment disposition following the delinquency in national taxes does not constitute compulsory execution under the above Act, even if it was rendered a decision to authorize the repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff, the attachment disposition does not lose its effect.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall register 00 district court 00 registry office of April 2013.

1. He/she shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of seizure completed under Article 8250;

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff did not pay national taxes of KRW 50,734,430, and the disposition office of the defendant is 00,000,000.

In other words, the attachment registration of the claim was completed by seizing the real estate stated in the attached list.

B. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a decision to authorize the repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedure of the Seoul 00 District Court (000 Ma 0000), and the said national tax claim was set as an individual rehabilitation claim with priority in the foregoing case.

C. The defendant's seizure disposition constitutes a compulsory execution based on the above national tax claim, which is an individual rehabilitation claim.

Inasmuch as Article 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act has lost its effect, it is null and void.

The registration of seizure of this case which is completed on the basis of the disposition of seizure shall be cancelled.

2. Determination

When it is decided to authorize the repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedures, the compulsory execution based on individual rehabilitation claims;

Provisional attachment or provisional disposition shall lose its effect, but shall not become effective for individual rehabilitation claims (with respect to the debtor's rehabilitation and bankruptcy).

Article 615(3) of the Act provides that the Defendant’s attachment disposition following a default of national taxes does not constitute compulsory execution under the foregoing Act, and thus, even if a decision to authorize a repayment plan was rendered in the individual rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff, such disposition does not lose its effect.

If so, on the premise that the defendant's seizure disposition has lost its effect due to the decision to authorize the repayment plan.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Article 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act