압류처분취소
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. Following the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, either of the following facts apparent in the records, or of Gap evidence Nos. 47, 48, and Eul evidence No. 10-15 (including paper numbers).
The plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") failed to pay global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 for the year 197, and the defendant (the re-defendant; hereinafter "the defendant"), on May 25, 199, seized the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul metropolitan apartment 2 Dong 805, which was owned by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was released from the attachment on January 10, 2006. < Amended by Act No. 7879, Jan. 10, 2006>
B. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again seized the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment A, which was owned by the Plaintiff on February 20, 2006.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36391), but the judgment against April 6, 2007 was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2007Nu11940 and filed an appeal as the Seoul High Court 2007Nu11940, but the appeal was sentenced on December 4, 2007 (hereinafter "the judgment on review"), but the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive by dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.
On April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for retrial with this court under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, claiming that “after the seizure of May 25, 1999, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition again on February 20, 2006, there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.” On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme Court, which was sentenced to dismissal of the petition for retrial on October 8, 2008, but the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
E. On the other hand, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the credit information provider, stating that “the Plaintiff is expected to notify the financial institution subject to the credit information provider, of the amount in arrears exceeds 5,00,000 won” (hereinafter “the instant document”).