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

The judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the first value-added tax on October 5, 2007 by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) shall be revoked on October 5, 2007. The imposition of the second value-added tax ○○○○○○, the second value-added tax on 2004, and the second tax ○○○, the corporate tax on 2004.

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and corporate tax as stated in the purport of the claim with the ○○ District Court, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 15, 2008. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment.

B. On June 4, 2009, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment.

C. On October 29, 2009, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of rejection of the Plaintiff’s appeal, which became final and conclusive on November 2, 2009.

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s ground for retrial

The plaintiff asserted that aaa, who worked as a technical operating director of the plaintiff company in the course of the deliberation of the judgment subject to a retrial, was merely allowing the plaintiff company to use the official land and ground waste oil tank owned by the plaintiff company to Espanish, etc., but the court did not make any decision thereon, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it did not make any decision thereon.

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

(a) Whether the period for filing a request for retrial is observed;

Article 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "No lawsuit for retrial shall be filed at the expiration of five years after the judgment becomes final and conclusive" in relation to the period for filing the petition for retrial.

However, according to the records of this case, the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on November 2, 2009, and it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed five years after it was passed thereafter, and thus, the lawsuit of this case, which failed to observe the period for filing a retrial, is unlawful.

B. Whether there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

1) A) Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where a judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment as to a material fact that may affect the judgment, which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, by means of an attack and defense submitted by a party in a lawsuit. In the event that a judgment is rendered, the reasons leading to the judgment are not sufficiently explained or the grounds for rejecting a party’s assertion are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da193, Jul. 6, 2000).

B) The judgment subject to a retrial is to determine whether the Plaintiff sold refined oil.

Since the judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim after taking into account all the arguments, it cannot be deemed that there exists any ground for retrial for omission of judgment as alleged by the Plaintiff as a ground for retrial.

2) Meanwhile, in light of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive on the grounds alleged as the grounds for final appeal, and on the other hand, barring any special circumstance, whether the judgment was omitted or omitted can be known at the time of being served with the original copy of the judgment, and thus, a lawsuit for a retrial cannot be filed even if it was not known that the omission in judgment was not alleged as the grounds for final appeal. Ultimately, the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act are not legitimate grounds for final appeal, regardless of whether the grounds for final appeal asserted as the grounds for final appeal were alleged as the grounds for final appeal, and in light of the purport of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides a supplementary nature, and the nature of a trial not to proceed with a trial, it is reasonable to deem that the final appeal is dismissed as a subsequent trial (see, e.g.

B) The Plaintiff served an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed to the Supreme Court on July 6, 2009. Accordingly, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have known that there was omission in the judgment subject to a retrial at that time. Therefore, regardless of whether the Plaintiff asserted such omission as the grounds for a retrial, omission in the judgment subject to a retrial may not

3. Conclusion

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