Seoul High Court-207-Nu6542 (Law No. 22, 2007)

A lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date on which the grounds for retrial are known;

Inasmuch as the information disclosure judgment cannot be deemed to constitute a change in the judgment that served as the basis for the judgment subject to review, it cannot be deemed that there was a ground for retrial. Even if there were grounds for retrial, a lawsuit for retrial was filed 30 days after the date of the request

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Nu 404 Revocation of attachment disposition

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap36407 Decided 26, 2007

on October 26, 2015

on October 23, 2015

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of request for retrial

On February 23, 2006, the judgment revoking the judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance, and revoking the seizure disposition against the rent claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) on February 23, 2006 by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) on February 23, 2006.

1. Determination of the judgment in the first instance;

According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

A. The Plaintiff failed to pay KRW 000 of the global income tax that was finalized through several revisions procedures in 1997 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”).

나. 원고가 이 사건 종합소득세 등을 체납하자 피고는 1999. 5. 25. 원고 소유의 ㅇㅇ 시 ㅇㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ-D 제ㅇ동 ㅇㅇㅇ호를 압류(이하 '이 사건압류'라 한다)하였다. 그 후 원고가 체납액 중 일부를 납부하고 나머지 체납액을 2006. 2. 10.까지 완납하겠다고 하자 피고는 2006. 1. 10. 이 사건 압류를 해제하였다.

다. 그러나 원고가 2006. 2. 10.까지도 체납액을 납부하지 않음에 따라 피고는 2006. 2. 23. 다시 ㅇㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇㅇ-ㅇ에 있는 원고 소유 건물의 임차인들인 최CC, 최DD, 임EE, 이FF, 서GG, 김HH, 강II에 대한 원고의 차임 채권을 압류하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다.

D. After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36407), but the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, which was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2007Nu6542 (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36407) and was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2007Nu6542 (the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed on August 22, 2007).

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 would be at least KRW 000 to the financial institution subject to the provision of credit information” (hereinafter “instant document”), and the Plaintiff received it on March 3, 2014.

F. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information that “the document of this case is to be disclosed to the Defendant.” On April 28, 2014, the information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive on October 16, 2014, by filing a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap11380) seeking the revocation of the decision of dismissal upon receipt of the decision of dismissal from the Defendant (Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap11380). On September 19, 2014, “the decision to dismiss the information disclosure made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014,” and the information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive as it is on October 16, 2014.

2. Whether the lawsuit for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The purport of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, since a civil or criminal judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial, was changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition, is a different judgment or administrative disposition.

B. Determination

Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that "an action for retrial may be brought when a judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, has been altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition." However, Article 456 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "an action for retrial shall be brought within 30 days from the date when the party concerned becomes aware of the ground for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "

First, as to whether the information disclosure judgment as seen earlier constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, the term “when a judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, has been changed” means that a judgment or administrative disposition legally binding force, or where the contents of a judgment or administrative disposition, which became materials for fact-finding at a final and conclusive judgment, is likely to affect the fact-finding of a final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da20570, May 31, 1996). The fact that the information disclosure judgment became final and conclusive cannot be deemed to constitute a change of judgment, and therefore, there is no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Furthermore, even if there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the judgment of disclosure of information became final and conclusive, and there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the same Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, was aware of the grounds for retrial at that time. However, it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 1, 2014, which was 30 days after the date of the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the lawsuit of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the litigation of this case for retrial and decide as per Disposition.