1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant trust contract was concluded between the non-party company and received the instant sales claim and deposit claim trust from the non-party company. On April 17, 2013, the non-party company notified the KEB Bank of the transfer of the instant deposit claim with a certified fixed date.

Therefore, the attachment disposition against the defendant's deposit claim of this case, which was made thereafter, was made against a third party's property which is not a taxpayer, and is void as a matter of course.

B. The Defendant’s main defense of this case was dismissed on March 8, 2018, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

C. Prior to the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion, we examine the Defendant’s defense of safety.

On March 8, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of each of the instant attachment dispositions on March 8, 2018, while the instant lawsuit is pending, is apparent in the record. As such, the Plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the instant attachment dispositions.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed as unlawful, and since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it