The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).

Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserts that there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, which is a judgment of non-psying to trial.

However, "when a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of a judgment, is changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition, which is a cause for a retrial as provided in Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act" refers to a case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of a judgment, is legally binding, or which is the basis of fact-finding in the final judgment, is changed finally and retroactively by another judgment or administrative disposition

(1) The Defendants’ revocation of the instant disposition of value-added tax before the judgment becomes final and conclusive in the case of revocation of the instant disposition of value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12679, Dec. 14, 2001).

In addition, Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act does not include ex officio matters.

However, even if the parties did not make a determination on the ex officio investigation that was alleged by them or did not urge their investigation, it does not constitute grounds for retrial under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu32, Nov. 8, 1994). Where the Defendants revoked ex officio the imposition of value-added tax after the lapse of the period for submitting the appellate brief, and submitted the data, it cannot be deemed as grounds for retrial even if the Defendants did not make a determination on

Therefore, all of the appeals are dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.