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

Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) shall pay 00 won to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs,” and hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant application for conciliation to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under one of the following order for payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for conciliation of this case to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant

In the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of request for retrial;

The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the order to pay below shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay 000 won to the plaintiff.

The following facts are clear in records:

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap36559, and the said court rendered a judgment that partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. All of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to this Court 2007Na5269, and the court accepted the defendant's appeal, and on March 21, 2008, rendered the decision subject to the judgment in this case with the purport that the part against the defendant in the first instance judgment against the defendant was revoked, and that the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation was dismissed, and on March 28, 2008, the original judgment was served on the plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2008Da26513, but the above appeal was dismissed by the court of the first instance on June 12, 2008, and the decision was delivered to the Plaintiff on June 17, 2008, and the decision of the retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The imposition of global income tax and defense tax in 1990 against the plaintiff of the head of the Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office under the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "instant imposition") is based on a written resolution on the transfer of income amount of value-added tax-free business operators (Evidence A-1-2), and the above documents are official documents prepared by the public official in charge.

B. As the Plaintiff failed to pay national taxes in accordance with the instant disposition, the head of the Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office attached the same 237mm2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) as the 000m26m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) on the north-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff owned, pursuant to the provisions related to the National Tax Collection Act, and then allowed the Korea Asset Management Corporation to put the instant land for public sale.

C. On November 13, 2005, the head of the Dongdaemun District Tax Office accepted the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance, revoked the instant disposition, and requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation that continued the procedure for the public sale of the instant land No. 1 to suspend the public sale at the same time, thereby selling the instant land amounting to KRW 00,000 to KRW 00, and due to this, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the difference.

D. On the other hand, the public official in charge of Dongdaemun-gu written the notice to the Korea Asset Management Corporation that the public auction on the land of this case was cancelled, and the reason for the cancellation of the public auction was not because the plaintiff voluntarily paid the national taxes according to the disposition of this case, but the public document was falsely written on the public auction (self-payment) and the notice of the public auction (self-payment) (Evidence No. 9-2) (Evidence No. 9-2), and written on the notice of the cancellation of the public auction (payment). The public official in charge of Seodaemun-gu written on the statement (Evidence No. 9-3) that the plaintiff was delinquent in paying the national taxes on the land of this case, and written on the false public document that the public auction on the land of this case was suspended on the part of the plaintiff.

E. Ultimately, in the process of the instant tax disposition and the public sale on the land 1, 2, due to the Plaintiff’s delinquency in national tax payment, the judgment subject to a retrial was omitted, and since there was no judgment on this, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Litigation Act, and each of the above public documents, which are evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, were made by falsity. Thus, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

3. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the documents and other items used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered," but, if so, only when a judgment of conviction or judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or when it is impossible to render a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment of a fine for negligence for reasons other than the refusal of evidence, a retrial may be instituted in respect of the act subject to punishment under Article 451 (2) of the same Act.

The lawsuit is unlawful. However, there is no Plaintiff’s assertion and proof as to the grounds for retrial, such as that the public official in charge of Leecheon-gu and Dongdaemun-gu, who prepared a false public document, regarding the grounds for retrial as alleged by the Plaintiff, received a final judgment of conviction due to this, and this part of the lawsuit on retrial is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of Article 451(2) of

B. Grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment subject to a retrial is omitted.” This means an attack and defense that the parties submitted for a retrial, which would affect the judgment, and so long as there exist no grounds for the judgment, it shall not be omission of judgment as provided in the above Article, even if there are no grounds for rejection of the allegations by the parties individually (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69834, Nov. 27, 2008). Meanwhile, according to the proviso of Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for a retrial cannot be brought again on the ground that there was no ground for retrial, 60 days after the final judgment became final and conclusive, and that there were no other grounds for retrial as stated in the proviso of Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that there were no other legitimate grounds for retrial, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18181.

4. Conclusion

If so, the litigation of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition.