Daegu District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-25 (2018.30)

Request for retrial which does not meet the requirements for a cause for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful and dismissed.

Inasmuch as it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit for review was filed five years after the date on which the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, the instant lawsuit for review is not deemed to have been filed after the expiry of the legitimate period for

Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act: Grounds for Retrial

Article 456 of the Civil Procedure Act: Period for Filing Petition for Retrial

2018Nu4473 Reinstatement, etc.

○ ○

○ Head of tax office et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2018Jhap25 Decided August 30, 2018

December 21, 2018

January 18, 2019

1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

Purport of claim, purport of request for retrial and purport of appeal

1. Purport of claim

Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) (only ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which had completed the registration of KRW 198 on November 1, 1998, imposed on the Plaintiff (only hereinafter “Plaintiff”) an interim prepayment of KRW 198,810 on global income tax in 198, and an imposition of value-added tax of KRW 500,00 on February 1, 1994 on January 18, 199, value-added tax of KRW 1,225,410 on one year in 195, value-added tax of KRW 2,369,420 on two years in 195, value-added tax of KRW 369,420, value-added tax on one year in 196 on the Plaintiff’s receipt of the registration of KRW ○○○○○○○- Daegu 9, 195,000, respectively.

2. Purport and purport of request for retrial

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendants are obliged to reinstate to the Plaintiff. As such, the judgment is revoked. As such, with respect to the real estate of a third party who is not liable to pay ○○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○, and the same ○○○○○○○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), KRW 11,295,150 + KRW 1,240,000 + KRW 8,67,200 on May 10, 201; KRW 1,240; KRW 1,67,200 on the ○○○○○○○○, Inc., Ltd., which was entrusted with the title of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, supra. 14, 201. Receipt of ownership transfer on April 22, 2011.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications, and thus, this Court’s explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "2000 Da 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance" is "200 Da ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.