the asset could be attached or not, and therefore overturned its decision.247 The plaintiffs again requested an order of attachment of the assets of the municipality of Parral on February 10, 1997.248 Three automobiles belonging to the municipality were seized on February 25, 1997.249 The trial court issued an order on May 14, 1997, at the request of the municipality, exempting two of the vehicles from attachment, in view of the fact that they were designated for the municipality’s societal functions.250 The third vehicle was sold at auction.251 The municipality filed a petition on December 19, 1997, to exempt two pieces of its property from attachment,252 and the plaintiffs objected to this request.253 The court of Parral issued an order on March 24, 1999, to exempt one of the two pieces of property, as it was a gymnasium located inside a school; however, the attachment ordered on the other property remained in force.254 The municipality appealed the order.255 The case file shows no decision on the motion of appeal. 101. The parties agreed on a payment plan on June 15, 1999, by which the municipality committed to pay a percentage of the total debt in installments and to sue the national treasury for the funds to pay the rest of the amount owed. Point three of the agreement stipulated, “the municipality recognizes the right of the claimants as held in the final verdict in this case, and both parties commit to take measures with the central government to process payment of the balance due.”256 An updated assessment of the settlement amount was submitted on October 20, 1999, for a total of CLP 940,651,465.257 102. The plaintiffs asked the court on March 27, 2007, to nullify the payment plan due to noncompliance by the municipality.258 The municipality of Parral informed the court on November 9, 2007, that it had completed the tenth and final installment called for in the payment plan agreement.259 The plaintiffs filed a brief on November 22, 2007, claiming that the municipality had failed to comply with clause eight of the payment plan agreement, in which it was required 247 Cf. Order by the Talca Court of Appeals, October 29, 1997 (evidence file, folios 17587 to 17590). 248 Cf. Brief filed by Ewaldo Schulz Ibáñez on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Parral, February 10, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17591). 249 Cf. Record of seizure, February 25, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17593). 250 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, May 14, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17595). 251 Cf. Auction report drawn up by the public auctioneer and submitted to the Court of First Instance of Parral, September 8, 1997 (evidence file, folio 17600). 252 Cf. Brief filed by Germain Morales Morales on behalf of the municipality of Parral before the Court of First Instance of Parral , December 19, 1997 (evidence file, folios 17604 a 17606). 253 Cf. Brief filed by Teodoro Patricio Durán Palma on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Parral, December 26, 1997 (evidence file, folios 17608 and 17609). 254 Cf. Order by the Court of First Instance of Parral, March 24, 1999 (evidence file, folios 17611 to 17613). 255 Cf. Motion of appeal filed by Germain Morales Morales on behalf of the municipality of Parral before the Court of First Instance of Parral, April 1, 1999 (evidence file, folios 17614 and 17615). 256 Payment plan agreed to between [Alexandra] Orrego Da Silva and Antonio César Valero Nader for the plaintiffs and the mayor of Parral (evidence file, folio 17619). 257 Cf. Assessment submitted by Public Accountant Jorge Leoncio Leal Cruces to the Court of First Instance of Parral, October 20, 1999 (evidence file, folios 17628 to 17631). 258 Cf. Brief filed by José Seda Navarrete on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Parral, March 27, 2007 (evidence file, folio 17639). 259 Cf. Brief filed by Paulo Javier Ávila Hernández on behalf of the municipality of Parral before the Court of First Instance of Parral, November 9, 2007 (evidence file, folio 17649 and 17650). 36