1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “2,251,180” in the “251,180” in the first table of the judgment of the court of first instance, for the purpose of “251,180”; “28,961,200” in the “26,961,200” in the aggregate of the additional dues, “26,961,200” in the “2015”; “5,2014” in the fourth and fourth (5,000,000) end in the fourth and seventh (7,000,0000) portion of the additional dues (excluding additional dues), as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and as such, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act except for the following changes:

2. Meanwhile, according to Articles 41 and 43 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 201) and Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23140, Sept. 16, 201), the scope of national taxes to be preserved by the seizure of claims under the National Tax Collection Act is limited to the national taxes in arrears, which are the cause of the seizure and are notified to the obligor. In this case, Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the scope of collection based on the seizure of claims shall be limited to the national taxes under preservation, its additional charges, and disposition fees for arrears. Meanwhile, if the national taxes are not paid by the due date without the confirmation procedure by the person who has the authority to impose taxes, the additional charges and increased additional charges under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act naturally become final and conclusive, and the amount of national taxes in arrears is also the same as the national taxes collected by subrogation.