2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

"The decision of review and the decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") rendered on July 2, 201 to the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") on July 2, 201 and the decision of the first instance shall be revoked."

1. Progress of the instant case

The following facts are clear in records:

A. On July 2, 2011, the Defendant, who became aware of the fact that the apartment owned by the Plaintiff was sold to the largestCC on April 25, 2008 at the auction procedure following the exercise of security rights by the bank BB bank, a senior mortgagee, was the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax OOO on the Plaintiff.

B. On the premise that the above auction was conducted in accordance with the exercise of the security right of DoD, which is a subordinate collateral, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, alleging that the instant disposition was unlawful, and that the said sale was null and void since the collateral security of DoD and Do judicial scrivener KimE established without the Plaintiff’s consent, and accordingly, the instant disposition was filed prior to the retrial seeking revocation of the instant disposition. On November 30, 2012, the said auction procedure was conducted upon the application of another mortgagee, and thus, the judgment was dismissed on the ground that whether the said sale was null and void is not a ground to invalidate the said sale.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with Seoul High Court No. 2013Nu2596, but the judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed an appeal with the same purport as the first instance court was rendered on July 24, 2013, and thereafter, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the judgment of the lower court on December 26, 2013, and became final and conclusive on December 31, 2013.

2. Determination as to whether a lawsuit for retrial is legitimate

As the Plaintiff asserted in the judgment subject to a retrial, the judgment subject to a retrial, which imposed transfer income tax on the premise of its validity, was erroneous, and the previous civil judgments and criminal judgments related to the right to collateral security of D were all false facts. As such, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there were grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)1, 3, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, in the judgment subject to a retrial.

However, in comparison with the grounds for a judgment subject to a retrial, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff do not constitute grounds for a retrial under any of the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no circumstance that can be seen as satisfying the requirements of Article 451(2) in the case of subparagraphs 4 through 7, or in the case of subparagraphs 4 and 7 of the same Article.

Therefore, all of the instant lawsuits are unlawful.

3. Conclusion

All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.