1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of real estate rent with the Seoul Central District Court A, as a mortgagee for the right to collateral security of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 62.5 square meters and its ground and the 19.83 square meters of a single-story house (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) owned by Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and filed an application for a voluntary auction of the said real estate.

B. In the above auction procedure, the completion period for demand for distribution was April 7, 2014.

C. On April 21, 2014, Defendant (the director of the budget office of the competent tax office) seized each of the instant real estate on the grounds that B did not pay capital gains tax, and on September 30, 2014, Defendant (the director of the budget office of the competent tax office) requested the executing court to deliver the amount in arrears.

The Plaintiff had a loan claim against B in addition to the above collateral security claim. However, on October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the amount equivalent to KRW 17,651,549, out of the proceeds from the sale of the above auction case, the amount equivalent to KRW 17,651,549, as it was based on the executory payment order of the loan case No. 2014Da461, Seojin-si, Daejeon District Court 201, Seojin-si, Daejeon District Court 201, Seosan, Daejeon District Court 201, Seosan-gu, Daejeon District Court 201 (the obligor B, the garnishee, the Republic of Korea, the claimed amount, KRW 17,651,549

The above order was served on the Republic of Korea as the garnishee on October 8, 2014.

E. In the above auction procedure, the executing court prepared a distribution schedule on October 14, 2014, which is the date of distribution, as shown in the attached Table.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 17,651,549 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant.

[Ground] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. In order for the Plaintiff’s assertion to receive a dividend as a tax claim, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s claim as a delinquent disposition procedure prior to the registration of the decision to commence the auction, or requested the delivery

However, after April 7, 2014, the period for demanding distribution, the Defendant seized each of the instant real estate on April 21, 2014, and on September 30, 2014, the amount in arrears at the executing court.