1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review:

A. The Plaintiff failed to pay the global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 among the global income tax accrued in 197, which was finalized through several revisions procedures (hereinafter “instant global income tax”).

B. On May 25, 1999, the Plaintiff failed to pay the global income tax of this case, and the Defendant seized (hereinafter “instant attachment”) No. 2, Dong 805, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I owned by the Plaintiff.

After that, the defendant dismissed the attachment of this case on January 10, 2006, because the plaintiff paid part of the amount in arrears and paid in full the remaining amount in arrears until February 10, 2006.

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

After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36407), but filed an appeal with Seoul High Court 2007Nu6542 decided that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed." However, on August 22, 2007, the plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that "the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed." (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment for retrial"), and although the plaintiff filed an appeal, the judgment for retrial became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court renders a judgment dismissing the non-trial trial.

E. On the other hand, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a credit information provider notice stating that “the amount in arrears of the Plaintiff is expected to be notified to the financial institution subject to the credit information provider, at least 5,000,000 won,” and the Plaintiff received it on March 3, 2014.

F. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information that “the instant document is to be disclosed to the public,” and sought revocation of the decision of dismissal on April 28, 2014 by the Seoul Administrative Court.