Plaintiff (Re-Appellant), appellees

AA

Defendant (Re-Defendant) and appellant

a) the Director of the Tax Office

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

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

1. Purport of claim

The imposition disposition of the capital gains taxx (including additional tax) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Purport of request for retrial;

The decision subject to a retrial shall be revoked. The imposition of the capital gains taxx (including additional tax) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2012, 209 shall be revoked.

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. On October 22, 1969, the Plaintiff acquired 48-2 forest 5,505 square meters in C.C. D. D. D. 48-2 forest 5,505 square meters in C., and 48-4 forest 157 square meters in P.S. (at the time, two parcels were divided; hereinafter the same was divided; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff reported capital gains tax by applying reduction and exemption to self-farmland for the instant land for eight years.” However, on May 1, 2012, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for capital gains tax reduction and exemption for the instant land after undergoing a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and filed a correction and notification (including additional taxes) of capital gains tax x (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. On June 4, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the instant disposition, against which the Plaintiff appealed.

D. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court by asserting that he/she directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years (2013Gudan53847), and the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on April 16, 2014, and revoked the instant disposition.

E. The Defendant appealed against the above judgment and filed an appeal with this court (2014Nu49011), and this court accepted the Defendant’s appeal on December 3, 2014, and revoked the first instance judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on review”). The Plaintiff re-appealed to the Supreme Court on April 9, 2015 (2014du47082). However, the Supreme Court dismissed the lower judgment on April 9, 2015, and the judgment on review became final and conclusive by serving the Plaintiff on the same day.

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Before the instant land was divided, a judgment on another land owned by the Plaintiff, which was the same as the instant land, was rendered on June 20, 2018, and was different from the instant judgment subject to a retrial. Therefore, the instant judgment subject to a retrial had a ground for retrial, namely, “when a judgment, which served as the basis for the instant judgment, was changed according to another judgment.”

B. Determination

(1) "When the judgment or administrative disposition on civil or criminal grounds for retrial prescribed in Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act is modified by a different judgment or administrative disposition" refers to the case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of a final judgment, is legally binding, or which is the basis of fact-finding in the final judgment, is finalized and retroactively modified by another judgment or administrative disposition. Here, the issue of whether it was material for fact-finding, means the case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which was adopted as evidence in the final judgment, is likely to affect the fact-finding of the final judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da12679, Dec. 14, 201). 2) If the purport of pleading as a whole is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 60, the plaintiff's appeal that became final and conclusive, 200Da485, 678, or 200, or 308, or 40, or 5, or less, or more, the Seoul High Court (Seoul).

However, insofar as a subsequent disposition or subsequent decision does not legally binding on the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and as long as the subsequent disposition or subsequent decision was not adopted as materials for fact-finding in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, it cannot be considered as grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.