1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Confirmation, etc. of the judgment subject to review

A. The Plaintiff failed to pay global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 for the year 197, and the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s I Apartment Adong 611 on May 25, 1999, but the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the delinquent amount in full until February 10, 2006.

However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again attached the Plaintiff’s rent claim against B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, the lessee of the building located in the Chungcheongnam-nam JJ owned by the Plaintiff on February 23, 2006.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36407), but on January 26, 2007, the judgment against the plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2007Nu6542, but the appeal was filed by the Seoul High Court 2007Nu6542, but the appeal was dismissed on August 22, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "the judgment on retrial"), but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.

C. On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for retrial with the court of this case for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, stating that “The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act exist since the Plaintiff mispercing that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, or did not make any decision on important matters that may affect the judgment, although the Defendant had not cancelled it after the seizure on May 25, 1999.” On October 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for retrial with the court of this case, stating that “There was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there was no reason for retrial under Article 451

On the other hand, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant’s notice of credit information provision (i.e., the Plaintiff’s arrears amounted to at least KRW 5,000,000) to the Plaintiff, stating that the Defendant would be notified to the financial institution subject to the credit information provider.