[법인세부과처분취소][공1980.9.15.(640),13045]
Point of starting the period of filing a review
When a judgment was served on an attorney, barring any special circumstances, the attorney could have known whether there was a omission of judgment in the judgment at that time, and where the attorney could have known of the omission of judgment, barring any special circumstance, the party to the lawsuit also was in a state where the existence of a omission of judgment could have been known, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the period allowed for filing a lawsuit for a retrial of a final judgment at that time shall be calculated from the time when the attorney
Articles 426(1) and 426(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 63Da167 delivered on June 20, 1963; 67Da1067 delivered on June 18, 1968; 68Da2 delivered on December 14, 1968
Orion Electric Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Kim head of the tax office
Supreme Court Decision 79Nu291 delivered on March 11, 1980
The action for retrial shall be dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds for retrial by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
ex officio, according to the records, the re-examination plaintiff was served on the attorney of the re-examination plaintiff on March 26, 1980, and the re-examination plaintiff was issued by the above attorney on April 5 of the same year and discovered that the judgment was omitted on important matters that could affect the judgment, and the judgment was filed for the re-examination of this case on May 1 of the same year.
However, in a litigation case in which there was an attorney, barring any special circumstance, when the judgment was served on the attorney, the above attorney could have known whether there was a deviation from the judgment at the time when the judgment was served, and where the attorney could have known of the omission of judgment, barring any special circumstance, the party to the lawsuit could have known of the omission of judgment. Thus, in a case in which a lawsuit for retrial was filed against the final judgment, the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial should be calculated from the time when the judgment was served on the party member (see Supreme Court Decisions 63Da167, Jun. 20, 1963; 67Da1067, Jun. 18, 1968, and 68No2, Dec. 14, 1968). Thus, the plaintiff's ground for retrial cannot be seen to have been served on the plaintiff's ground for retrial without any special reason for retrial as to the plaintiff's ground for retrial.
Therefore, the suit of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit of this case shall be borne by the plaintiff for a retrial and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)