Chuncheon District Court 2008Guhap182 ( November 20, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007Du1715 ( December 05, 2007)

The rejection is unlawful because it cannot be deemed that a final judgment was rendered at the time of filing a lawsuit for retrial.

Inasmuch as it cannot be deemed that there was a final judgment at the time of filing a lawsuit for retrial, and the intent is merely a simple objection to the judgment of the appellate court and has been treated as a legitimate appeal, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed

2010Mono 154 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Value-Added Tax Correction

LAA

○ Head of tax office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2008Guhap182 Decided November 20, 2009

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu39263 Decided June 17, 2010

April 14, 2011

May 12, 201

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

The judgment revoking the judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance, and revoking each disposition of imposition of the value-added tax of 650,152 won, value-added tax of 1 year 2005, value-added tax of 2 year 2005, value-added tax of 921,930 won, value-added tax of 2 year 2006, value-added tax of 1 year 2006, value-added tax of 915,543 won, 271 minute 516,235 won in 206, respectively.

1. Progress of the instant case

The following facts shall be apparent in the records or obvious to this court:

A. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant prior to the retrial seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of each value-added tax stated in the purport of the claim, which was by the court of first instance. On November 20, 2009, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s revocation of the tax amount exceeding KRW 569,232 among the value-added tax of KRW 650,152, and value-added tax of KRW 569,232 among the value-added tax of KRW 650,152, and value-added tax of KRW 921,930 for February 2, 2005, on the ground that the Defendant’s revocation disposition of reduction or correction was unlawful, and the remainder of the claim is lawful.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal with this Court No. 2009Nu39263, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 17, 2010.

C. On July 5, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a petition for review of this case to the Supreme Court on July 5, 2010, which is within the lawful period of appeal. The court confirmed that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment subject to review and sent the petition for review of this case to the Supreme Court.

D. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal on December 9, 2010, thereby becoming final and conclusive. On December 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial with the court 2010Nu260, separate from the chief of the instant retrial office, and the lawsuit is still pending.

2. Existence of grounds for retrial

According to the above facts, as long as it cannot be deemed that there was a final judgment at the time of filing a lawsuit for retrial of this case, and its intent merely becomes a mere objection against the judgment of the appellate court and has been processed as a legitimate final appeal, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful (it does not mean that the plaintiff's assertion related to the grounds for retrial of this case is unlawful in the judgment subject to retrial, and thus it cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial as to the judgment subject to retrial, and no other argument is raised as to the fact that there exists a ground for retrial as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices to dismiss the litigation of this case.