정보공개판결이 확정되었다고 하더라도 재심판결의 기초가 되는 재판이 바뀐 때에 해당하지 않으므로 재심사유가 없음[국승]
Even if an information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive, there is no ground for retrial since the judgment that forms the basis of the judgment on retrial was not changed.
There is no evidence to support the existence of a judgment that served as the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial, and even if the information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive, there is no room to deem that the judgment, which served as the basis for the judgment of retrial, was altered. Therefore, there is no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)
2014Nu398 Revocation of attachment disposition
Park 00
Defendant (Re-Defendant) and appellee
Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu11940 Decided December 4, 2007
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap36391 Decided April 6, 2007
September 24, 2015
October 23, 2015
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial
The judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The attachment disposition taken by the defendant (the defendant) on February 20, 2006 against the plaintiff (the plaintiff) on February 20, 2006, about 00 - 00 - 00 - 611 - 0 - 00 -
1. Determination of the original judgment
The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the oral argument before the oral argument in each entry of Gap evidence No. 46,47.
A. The Plaintiff did not pay global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 for the year 197, imposed as the payment period on April 30, 199.
B. On May 25, 199, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s 00-Gu 000-dong 0000 dong 805 on May 25, 199, but the Plaintiff released the attachment on January 10, 2006 that the amount of delinquent taxes would be paid in full by February 10, 2006.
C. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again issued the instant disposition on February 20, 2006, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 601 00 00 00 00 00 01 owned by the Plaintiff.
D. After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case (Seoul -Seoul - Court 2006Guhap 36391), but on April 6, 2007, the plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court 2007Nu11940, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on December 4, 2007, but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by being notified by the Supreme Court that the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on December 4, 2007.
E. On the other hand, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant sent a notice of credit information provider notice (the instant document) stating that the Plaintiff’s delinquent amount was at least KRW 5,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff and that it would be notified to the financial institution subject to the credit information provider. The Plaintiff received the notice on March 3, 2014.
F. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the instant document to the public, but on April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said decision of dismissal (Seoul Administrative Court 23014Guhap11380) by the Defendant (Seoul Administrative Court 23014Guhap11380), and was sentenced on September 19, 2014 to “the revocation of the decision of dismissal of the information disclosure made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014,” and the information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive on October 16, 2014.
2. Existence of grounds for retrial
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Since a judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition on a civil or criminal case, which forms the basis of a judgment subject to a retrial, becomes changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition by final judgment on information disclosure, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.
B. Determination
Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “A lawsuit may be instituted at the time a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, has been altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition.” Here, the term “the basis of a judgment” refers to a case where a judgment legally binding force a final judgment, or where the contents of a judgment, became materials for fact-finding at a final and conclusive judgment, and where the judgment may affect the fact-finding of a final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Na20570, May 31, 1996). However, in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a judgment forming the basis of a judgment subject to original judgment, even if an information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive, it cannot be said that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Conclusion
As there is no ground for retrial of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the judgment subject to retrial, the retrial of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.