1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. As of October 22, 1969, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to KRW 290,531,280 on June 29, 2009, after completing registration of preservation of ownership with respect to B forest No. 5,505 square meters and C forest No. 157 square meters (at the time, two parcels were the H forest before division, which was divided, and the said two parcels were divided; hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).

B. On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant land by applying the reduction or exemption for self-farmland for eight years. However, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the instant land after undergoing a tax investigation, and on May 1, 2012, on May 1, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 51,359,950 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On September 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan53847, and received a favorable judgment on April 16, 2014.

Accordingly, on December 3, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal and rendered the Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu49011, which revoked the first instance judgment and the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on review”). While the Plaintiff filed an appeal on April 9, 2015, the judgment on review became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the petition for retrial of this case

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu73667 Decided June 2, 2017 (hereinafter “related case judgment”) recognized facts different from those that served as the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial. As such, the grounds under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act exist in the judgment subject to a retrial.

(hereinafter referred to as the “head of the first week”) and the judgment subject to a retrial did not recognize the Plaintiff’s own fact for 8 years recognized by the National Tax Examination Committee, and the transfer income tax.