1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion transferred to the Defendant the entire Plaintiff’s siren business in KRW 1,712,675,757, including 50 motor vehicles.

At that time, the defendant did not pay value-added tax to the plaintiff as well as the value-added tax, but does not pay the plaintiff value-added tax of KRW 155,697,794.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 155,697,794 as well as statutory delay damages.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”) 2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant

A. The obligor cannot pay the obligee obligations due to the seizure due to the default of national taxes, and the obligee cannot exercise the seized claims, since the obligor cannot pay the obligee obligations only to the competent tax official.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da101435, 2009Da101442, Mar. 25, 2010, etc.] B.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 3, the head of the sericultural Tax Office, on December 30, 2015, seized the above amount of delinquent tax (including additional dues and aggravated additional dues added after the date of seizure) among the claims in this case in order to collect the delinquent national tax of KRW 193,056,960, which the plaintiff did not pay, and thereafter, confirmed that the notification of seizure was reached to the defendant. Meanwhile, as long as the amount of the claims in this case does not fall short of the above amount of delinquent tax as equivalent to 155,697,794 won and statutory delay damages thereof, the plaintiff, who is the creditor, cannot exercise the whole amount of the claims in this case seized as national tax in arrears, and therefore, there is no standing to sue to file a lawsuit seeking payment of the claims in this case against the plaintiff who lost

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.