The Supreme Court's precedent that has conflicting interpretation and judgment with the original judgment does not legally binding on the final and conclusive judgment.

The Supreme Court en banc Decision, which issued conflicting interpretations and judgments, does not legally binding on the judgment subject to a final and conclusive judgment, separate from the case at all, and cannot be deemed as a case where a final and conclusive judgment or administrative disposition, which provided materials for fact-finding in the judgment subject to a final and conclusive judgment, is subsequently changed by another judgment or administrative disposition

Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act

2016Revocation of revocation of a revocation of a request for rectification of global income tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

August 19, 2016

September 2, 2016

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

and review

1. Purport of claim

The defendant (the defendant for retrial, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") x 20 x x. The defendant (the plaintiff for retrial, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") x 20 x the plaintiff (the plaintiff for retrial, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") x 20 x the global income tax ○○○, 20 x the global income tax x x 20 x the year x the global income tax x ○○○, 20 x the global income tax x the year x 20 x the disposition rejecting

2. Purport of request for retrial;

The original judgment is revoked and the judgment is sought, such as the purport of the original judgment.

1. Determination of the original judgment

The following facts are clear in records:

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting a request for rectification of global income tax, 201-Gu 2620, 201-Gu 2620, by asserting that the real income of real estate rent was subsequently reduced ex post facto due to the ○○○○○, which was charged with a violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment on global income tax 】 (i.e., a year or 20 】 (ii) year or ○○○○○

B. In the above case, this Court 20 x 20 x x. 】. 】 In a case where a taxpayer received money from a criminal act and did not return it to the original owner, income which is subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act is already realized, and the additional collection of money was finalized in a criminal case against a taxpayer, and thus, it became final and conclusive that all of the money should be collected to the State, as a result, due to a taxpayer's criminal act subject to criminal punishment, it cannot be said that the additional collection of money was the result of a criminal act subject to criminal punishment, and it cannot be said that it is the same as the restoration to the original owner. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the taxpayer did not realize income equivalent to the money that the taxpayer received from the criminal act on the sole basis of such additional collection and execution (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19816, Feb. 27, 1998). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed on the premise of this.

C. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time as the Plaintiff did not object to the above judgment.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du5514 Decided July 16, 2015 ruled that, even if a tax liability was established once the tax requirement of control and management of illegal income was met, if the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in illegal income, such as confiscation or collection, has occurred later, and becomes final and conclusive as income has not been realized, barring special circumstances, a taxpayer may be free from the burden of tax liability by filing a subsequent request for correction stipulated in Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, barring special circumstances. Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19816 Decided February 27, 1998, which held otherwise, held that, according to the above Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du5514 Decided July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff’s request for correction of global income tax in this case should be revised to the extent inconsistent with this Opinion. According to the changed precedents of the Supreme Court, the Defendant’s request for correction after the collection of additional tax exists, but the Defendant’s disposition or other administrative disposition in civil procedure.

"When a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for a cause for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, has been altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition," means either a legally binding force of the final judgment, or a case where a judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for the definition of facts in the final judgment, has been finally and retroactively changed by another judgment or administrative disposition, and where materials for fact-finding have been established by such final judgment or administrative disposition, and where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, means a case where it is possible that the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for a final judgment, would have an impact on the fact-finding of the final judgment, has become final and conclusive in the final judgment or where the change in the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis for the final and conclusive judgment, has been made by the modification of the precedents in other cases, does not constitute such case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da1267525, Oct. 14, 2007).

In this case, the Plaintiff’s grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which were the grounds for retrial, are as follows: (a) after the judgment for retrial became final and conclusive; and (b) through Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du5514 Decided July 16, 2015, where a judgment of additional collection in a criminal case becomes final and conclusive, the Plaintiff changed previous precedents concerning whether it is subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act; (c) however, such a change in the Supreme Court’s precedents does not legally binding on the instant judgment subject to retrial, which is wholly final and conclusive separate from the said case; and (d) does not constitute a case where a judgment or administrative disposition, which became the materials for fact-finding in the said judgment for retrial, has

Therefore, the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is decided to dismiss it, and it is decided as per the disposition.