2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of retrial.

A. On May 1, 1997, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 8,102,720 on the Plaintiff for the reason that the Plaintiff filed a final return of global income tax base of 1991, on the grounds that the Plaintiff omitted or under-reported the amount of revenue (hereinafter the instant disposition).

B. On April 11, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the establishment of the instant disposition at 00,000,000, the ○○○○ court, and the above lawsuit stated that “The value of the assets received without compensation by a resident under Article 30(2) of the former Income Tax Act, and the amount appropriated for the exemption of the resident’s obligation, shall not be included in the total amount of income in calculating the income amount for the pertinent year. Thus, the Plaintiff’s act of payment in kind and payment of four households among apartment houses in order to be exempt from liability to landowners, shall not be included in the total amount of income, and thus, the instant disposition

C. On June 26, 1998, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and held that “ insofar as the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of four households of an apartment as set forth in the payment of the purchase price to landowners, as alleged by the Plaintiff, so long as the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of four households of the apartment as set forth in the payment of the purchase price to the land owners, it cannot be deemed that the profit from the discharge of the obligation was generated. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim that the sales price of the said four households should be deducted from

D. On October 15, 1998, the above judgment dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal (○○○ court 00Nu0000), which became final and conclusive around that time. On September 7, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a revocation lawsuit again on September 7, 1999, which had the meaning of seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition, 00Gu000, but the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it was savings of res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of ○○○ court 0000 on December 17, 1999. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a petition for a new trial against the ○○○ court 00,000, 000, 000, 2000, on the ground of the grounds of the denial of judgment as to its nullity claim. On March 22, 2000, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing a suit for new trial on the grounds that the grounds for a new trial is not recognized. The above judgment was affirmed by dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal (○○○ court 000, 148) and the appeal (○○00,000,000).

F. On February 24, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition at ○○○○ court 000Guhap0000. Accordingly, on May 22, 2003, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of taxation disposition is also not in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the said disposition. Thus, the said lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity is against the res judicata of the said ○○○ court 00Guhap00 judgment, which is a final and conclusive judgment on the instant claim, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 20, 2003.

G. Accordingly, on August 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial with the ○○○○ Court 000Guhap0000 under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ground that there exist grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the same Act, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing a petition for retrial on the ground that the period for filing a petition for retrial expires on November 24, 2005, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2005.

H. On December 24, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition with ○○○ court 000Guhap00000, and on April 13, 2006, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit without a judgment on the merits on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was abused in violation of the principle of good faith and thus, it cannot be permitted. The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 7, 2006.

I. In other words, on May 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that there was a ground for a retrial for a reversal of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the said Act, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing a petition for retrial on the grounds that there was no ground for a retrial for a reversal of judgment under the said judgment on July 26, 2006, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2006.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleading, and the purport of the whole pleading.

2. The plaintiff's assertion on grounds for retrial

In the disposition of this case, the amount of revenue found by the plaintiff to be found to have omitted or underreported the final return of global income tax base in 1991 is "the sale price of the fourth apartment units newly constructed as a substitute site after the plaintiff received the land from the land owner in the course of the apartment sale business and provided as a substitute payment for the payment of the purchase price, not the actual revenue, but the expenditure (necessary expenses). As such, the judgment subject to a retrial was rejected by the plaintiff's determination on the above argument, there is a reason for evading the determination under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. The exercise of the right to a trial is regulated by the principle of trust and good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial functions. Therefore, the repeated filing of a lawsuit with the same content cannot be accepted by law on the grounds that it would result in bullying of the other party, and it would result in confusion between unnecessary consumption of judicial personnel and judicial functions, barring special circumstances, and it is not permissible to abuse the right to a lawsuit in violation of the principle of trust and good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da414, Apr. 24, 2001; 200Da421, Apr. 24, 2001).

B. As to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation or invalidity confirmation of the instant disposition several times from around 1998 to the filing of the instant lawsuit on the same grounds as the instant case, and rendered a dismissal or invalidation judgment, and the said judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the first instance court, or the second instance court, and the instant lawsuit is filed again with the same content. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is an abuse of the right of action in violation of the principle of good faith and thus is not allowed (On the other hand, the judgment subject to a retrial shall clearly determine the grounds that the sales value of the apartment 4 households, which provided the Plaintiff as the exemption of substitute payment, should include the amount equivalent to the sales value of the apartment 4 households, which provided as the exemption of substitute payment, as the grounds for a retrial of the judgment subject to

4. Conclusion

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