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

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

The judgment subject to a review and the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall pay to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") 5% interest per annum from June 30, 2006 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. On May 1, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired the instant real estate by inheritance, and transferred it to BB, etc. on August 25, 2005; and (b) applied both acquisition value and transfer value pursuant to Article 97(1)1(a) and the main sentence of Article 96(1) of the former Income Tax Act when calculating transfer margin of the instant real estate, a public official affiliated with the Defendant calculated the transfer margin of the instant real estate in accordance with the actual transaction value and imposed tax assessment, thereby incurring damage from the payment of more than the transfer income tax corresponding to the difference between the transfer income tax and the transfer income tax illegally calculated; and (c) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for compensation by a tort, claiming for the payment of the said OOO and its delay damages.

B. On April 24, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the first instance court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Court and appealed to the Seoul High Court. On October 25, 2012, the Seoul High Court sentenced the judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal, and the Plaintiff appealed to this, but the Supreme Court sentenced the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 15, 2013 (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da202918), and on February 20, 2013, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment subject to retrial was based on false documents submitted by the defendant.

Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when documents and other articles used as evidence of judgment have been forged or altered," a cause for retrial is provided for in Article 451 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Meanwhile, in the case of Article 451 (1) 4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, a lawsuit may be brought for retrial."

Therefore, in order to claim a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for retrial should be asserted and proved together with the fulfillment of the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, except for such grounds for retrial. A lawsuit seeking a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful without satisfying the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, a lawsuit seeking a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act should be dismissed without examining whether there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29658, Oct. 24, 198)

However, the plaintiff failed to assert and prove that the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, namely, when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence became final and conclusive, or when it is impossible to make a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence for reasons other than lack of evidence, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is unlawful without any need to further determine whether there exists a ground for retrial.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is rendered.