1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review.

A. On October 22, 1969, the Plaintiff acquired B forest Nos. 5,505 square meters and C forest No. 157 square meters (at the time of division, the two parcels were divided before and after the division; hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). On June 29, 2009, on the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax by applying the reduction and exemption for one-year self-farmland.

B. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant did not accept an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the instant land after undergoing a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and on May 1, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 51,359,950 (including additional tax) of the capital gains tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 4, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on the instant disposition, which was dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s appeal.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court by asserting that the instant land was cultivated directly for at least eight years (2013Gudan53847), and the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on April 16, 2014, and revoked the instant disposition.

E. The Defendant, who is dissatisfied with the above judgment, filed an appeal with this court (2014Nu49011), and this court accepted the Defendant’s appeal on December 3, 2014, and revoked the first instance judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The Plaintiff appealed again to the Supreme Court (2014Du47082) but the Supreme Court dismissed the lower judgment on April 9, 2015, and the judgment for review became final and conclusive upon being served on the Plaintiff on the same day.

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

A. Before the Plaintiff’s assertion is divided into the land of this case, a judgment was rendered on June 20, 2018 on other land owned by the Plaintiff, which was the same as the land of this case, and the instant judgment was rendered.