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

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

1. Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The disposition of the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") against the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") on October 5, 2009 is revoked. The disposition of the OOOO of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2007."

The judgment subject to a retrial, the first instance judgment, and the Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu271 Decided May 2, 2013 shall be revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax OOOO for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on October 5, 2009 is revoked.

The following facts are clear in records:

“A. On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for revocation of the disposition of imposition of OOOO of capital gains tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”) against the Plaintiff on October 5, 2009, as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Gudan11941, but the said court rendered a ruling of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 14, 201.” (b) The Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed with Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu39426 on November 3, 2011, but the said court appealed with the Supreme Court Decision 201Du15708 on July 11, 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 25, 2012, which became final and conclusive pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Procedure for Appeal of Supreme Court.

D. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff omitted judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion, and this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation, etc. of the judgment subject to retrial on the grounds that the judgment subject to retrial was omitted on the grounds that it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Seoul High Court Act, and (e) on May 2, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the said lawsuit on the grounds that the lawsuit cannot be filed on the grounds that the judgment subject to retrial was omitted for lack of judgment on the grounds that it was unlawful (hereinafter referred to as “prior judgment”), and (f) the Plaintiff appealed on May 20, 2013 as Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10236, Aug. 23, 2013; however, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal on the grounds that the judgment subject to retrial became final and conclusive under Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Supreme Court Proceedings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The judgment subject to a review is not a legitimate tax amount asserted by the plaintiff, and there is an error of omission of judgment as to a legitimate ground of taxation and a legitimate ground of penalty tax at the time of the disposition of this case, which constitutes grounds for retrial of "when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act" and B.

(1) Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, may bring an action for retrial against a final and conclusive final final final judgment in any of the following cases: Provided, That the same shall not apply in cases where the parties have asserted the grounds by an appeal or did not know of the grounds therefor. In addition, Article 451(1) of the same Act provides that when the judgment on important matters affecting the judgment was omitted, the grounds for retrial are one of the grounds

(2) However, 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 of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal asserted in the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court of final appeal is omitted, it can be known if the original copy of the judgment was served on the original copy of the judgment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it could be asserted as the ground of final appeal on the ground that the omission of judgment could be known when the original copy of the judgment of the court of final appeal was served on the original copy of the judgment, and it could not be asserted as the ground of final appeal. Ultimately, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the omission of judgment in the court of final appeal may not be a legitimate ground of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Da2688, Mar. 30, 1971; 205Da58236, Jan. 12, 2006).

(3) Therefore, in the instant case, although the Plaintiff filed a final appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial and the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal on October 25, 2012, the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on November 1, 2012 is as seen earlier. In such a case, the Plaintiff cannot file a petition for a retrial on the grounds of omission in judgment, regardless of whether the Plaintiff asserted it on the grounds of omission in judgment at the final appeal. Therefore, the instant lawsuit for a retrial is unlawful (i.e., even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff in this court, it is not determined that there exists a legitimate ground for retrial as stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.