Whether the requirements for review are satisfied;

The fact that the Value-Added Tax Act was amended immediately before the Supreme Court's final judgment does not constitute grounds for retrial.

Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The term “when a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis for a cause for a retrial as provided by Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, has been altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition” refers to a case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for a retrial as provided by Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, is legally binding, or where a judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for fact-finding, has been finally and retroactively altered by another judgment or administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da12679, Dec. 14,

민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호에 정하여진 재심사유인 '판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항에 관하여 판단을 누락한 때'라고 함은 당사자가 소송상 제출한 공격방어방법으로서 판결에 영향이 있는 것에 대하여 판결 이유 중에 판단을 명시하지 아니한 경우를 말하고, 판단이 있는 이상 그 판단에 이르는 이유가 소상하게 실시되어 있지 아니하거나 당사자의 주장을 배척하는 근거를 일일이 개별적으로 설명하지 아니하더라도 이를 위 법조에서 맣하는 판단누락이라고 할 수는 없다(대법원 2007. 1. 12. 선고 2006재다492 판결등 참조).

Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when a final judgment, which is a cause for a retrial, is contrary to a final judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial,” the term “when a final judgment, which is a cause for a retrial, is contrary to the final judgment rendered prior to the filing of the final judgment,” refers to the time when the effect of a final judgment rendered prior to the filing of the final judgment, affects the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, and when the res judicata effect of a final judgment rendered prior to the filing of the final judgment does not extend to the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, the said provision does not constitute a cause for a retrial

2. The lower court determined that there were no grounds for retrial as provided in Article 451(1)8, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that the final judgment did not constitute a case where a civil or criminal judgment, other judgments, or administrative dispositions, which served as the basis of the said judgment, were changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition, and that the judgment subject to a retrial did not omit any judgment on important matters that may affect the Plaintiff’s assertion or judgment, and that a final and conclusive judgment (Supreme Court Decision 9Du10810, Feb. 9, 2001) alleged by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) does not affect the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, on the grounds that res judicata effect does not affect the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for retrial as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

In addition, the plaintiff (the plaintiff) has asserted that Article 12 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act is against the Constitution in relation to the judgment subject to a retrial, but the issue of whether the above provision is in violation of the Constitution is not a premise for the judgment of this case (the judgment of retrial). Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted without further review.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing plaintiff (Plaintiff). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.