판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항[각하]
Important matters that may affect the judgment;
In fact, a record of the statement that there was a commodity transaction does not constitute a omission of judgment on important matters affecting the judgment.
Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act: Grounds for Retrial
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Purport of claim
The judgment of the first instance court and the decision subject to a retrial shall be revoked. The disposition of each of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") rendered against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") on December 1, 200 shall be revoked in the amount of 11,601,050 corporate tax for the year 198 (the date of payment, December 31, 2000), corporate tax for the year 1999, 78,997,40 won [36,345,580 won (the date of payment, August 31, 200) + 42,650,860 won (the date of payment, December 31, 200) (the date of payment, December 31, 200).
1. Determination of the original judgment
The following facts are clear in records:
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to seek revocation of each disposition of imposition of KRW 11,601,050, and corporate tax of KRW 78,997,440, which reverts to the year 1999, on May 22, 2002, with the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims on May 22, 2002.
B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed with this court 2002Nu○○○○○○. On December 10, 2004, this court rendered a decision revoking each of the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 11,601,050 in excess of KRW 5,424,354 in the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 11,60,050 in the year 198 and the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 78,997,440 in the year 199, exceeding KRW 34,439,58 in the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 78,97,440 in the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW
C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above judgment subject to a retrial, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2005du○○○○○○○○, but on April 14, 2005, the said judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
In the judgment subject to a retrial, the court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff made a real transaction with head of ○○ (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○), Kim○ (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○).
B. Determination
Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that "when a judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment," which are grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, means an attack and defense submitted by a party in a lawsuit, which are not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, and as long as the judgment is rendered, it does not constitute omission of the judgment even if the reasons leading to the judgment are not sufficiently explained or the grounds for rejecting the parties' claims are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da415, Jan. 28, 2005; 2005Da1803, Feb. 10, 2006). However, the grounds for retrial asserted by the plaintiff does not constitute a new ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and does not constitute a new ground for retrial under Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Conclusion
As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is decided as per Disposition.