양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent or apparent to this court.
On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 13,783,580 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the Plaintiff on October 5, 2009, with the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2010-Gu 11941, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 14, 201.
B. On November 3, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2011Nu39426, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 8, 2012.
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Du15708 Decided July 11, 2012. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal due to the delay of hearing in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal of Supreme Court on October 25, 2012. The foregoing judgment became final and conclusive by serving the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012.
However, on November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation, etc. of the said judgment with Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2011Nu39426) on the ground that it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, on the grounds that it constitutes grounds for retrial of “when the judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment was omitted.”
The Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on May 2, 2013 to the effect that the said lawsuit is unlawful because the Plaintiff, who had already asserted the same cause by an appeal, could not file a petition for reexamination on the grounds of omission of judgment.
However, on May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10236 Decided May 20, 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 23, 2013 due to the delay of hearing in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal.