Where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits, it is possible to request a retrial only

Where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits, it is impossible to request a retrial against the judgment of the first instance, and it is possible to request a retrial only against the judgment of the appellate court, but it is possible to request a retrial only if it falls under

Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act: Grounds for Retrial

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of capital gains tax of 120,213,940 won (including additional tax) made on February 6, 199 by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) shall be revoked on February 6, 199.

2. Purport of appeal and request for retrial

The judgment subject to a retrial is revoked. Of the judgment of the first instance court of the judgment subject to a retrial, the part against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent part of the judgment subject to a retrial shall be revoked. On February 6, 1999, the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 120,213,940 won (including additional duties) against the plaintiff (the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial in this case with the ○○ District Court on the ground that the judgment of the first instance of the judgment subject to a retrial was the judgment subject to a retrial; however, if the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits, the judgment of the first instance cannot be requested, and the appellate court can only request a retrial against the judgment of the appellate court, and the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial in this case shall be deemed to be the subject of a retrial. Accordingly, the first instance court of the judgment rejecting the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial, which is the judgment of the appellate court, was sentenced to the judgment of the first instance on December 14, 201.

1. Case progress

The following facts are clear in records:

A. On November 19, 1982, the Plaintiff owned the ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong 656.8 square meters, and operated a kindergarten with one story on the ground. On May 28, 1984, the Plaintiff extended the 172.35 square meters of a kindergarten on the 1st floor and 110.94 square meters of a house with two stories on the 2nd floor on the 2nd floor on November 30, 1988.

나. 원고는 1994. 4. 18. 위 토지 및 그 지상 건물(이하 '위 부동산'이라 한다)에 대하여 허〇〇에게 1994. 3. 11. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었다.

C. On February 6, 1999, the Defendant did not report the transfer income tax regarding the transfer of the above real estate to the Plaintiff and calculated the transfer margin on the basis of the standard market price by considering the transfer time as of April 18, 1994, which was the date of receipt of the registration, on the ground that the Defendant did not report the transfer income tax on the transfer of the above real estate. The Defendant imposed the transfer margin on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. Accordingly, on March 28, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with ○○ District Court 2000Gu991, which was alleged unlawful. On February 15, 2001, the above court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim partially and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that the part exceeding KRW 111,403,845 of the instant disposition was revoked and the Plaintiff’s remaining claims were dismissed. The Plaintiff appealed with 2001Nu922, which was dissatisfied with the disposition, but the appeal was dismissed on December 14, 2001. The Plaintiff appealed with 2002du1066, but the appeal was dismissed on May 31, 2002.

E. On September 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case with the ○○ District Court rendered the said ○○ District Court Decision 2000Gu991 on September 18, 2006 by asserting that the said judgment was based on the evidence forged or altered and the witness’s perjury and the witness’s perjury and that it was an illegal judgment for the application of the law, and the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for retrial of this case on January 25, 2007.

2. Violation of the exclusive jurisdiction of judgment of the first instance;

First, we examine ex officio the case, and review of the final and conclusive judgment shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which rendered the judgment for a retrial (Article 453(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and when the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, we cannot institute a lawsuit against the judgment of the first instance (Article 451(3) of the same Act). As seen earlier, as long as the plaintiff filed an appeal against the defendant under this court 2000-Gu991 and the judgment of the appellate court on December 14, 2001, the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of this case on December 14, 2001, the plaintiff may institute a lawsuit only on the judgment of the appellate court 201Nu922 delivered on December 14, 201, which is the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful by requesting the judgment of the appellate court as the judgment of the first instance court 200-Gu91, which is the judgment of the appellate court.

However, in full view of the grounds for retrial of the Plaintiff’s assertion as seen earlier, it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to arrange as the subject of review of the appellate court’s judgment. As such, the court of first instance should have transferred the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for retrial to the appellate court having exclusive jurisdiction. However, since the court of first instance has rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for retrial of this case without transferring it to the competent court, the judgment of the first instance court is in

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked ex officio, but the court of this case is the competent court of the lawsuit of retrial of this case.

3. Determination on the grounds for retrial

가. 원고는 이 사건 재심사유로써, ① ○○지방법원 2000구991호 사건에서의 원고의 소송대리인인 변호사 이〇〇이 소장을 제출하면서, 원고가 위 부동산의 양도대금을 최후로 송금받은 날짜가 1997. 2. 19.임에도 1995. 2. 19.로 잘못 기재하는 등 소송수행을 불성실하게 함으로써 원고로 하여금 소송에서 패소하게 하였고, ② 위 사건에서 원고는 소송대리인으로 변호사 이〇〇만을 선임하였음에도 그 판결문에는 원고의 소송대리인이 변호사 조〇〇로 되어 있어 소송대리권의 흠결이 있으며, ③ 위 사건에서 원고가 ○○세무서 직원이던 전〇〇을 증인을 신청하였는데 전〇〇이 위증을 하였고, ④ 위 사건의 항소심인 ○○고등법원 2001누922호 사건에서 피고의 소송수행자인 이〇〇가 사실과 다른 허위의 변론을 하였으며, ⑤ ○○지방법원 2000구991호 사건의 소 제기 당시 행정소송의 제1심 관할법원은 고등법원임에도 지방법원인 ○○지방법원이 판결을 선고함으로써 법률에 따라 판결법원을 구성하지 아니한 위법이 있다고 주장한다.

나. 살피건대, 원고가 주장하는 재심사유 중 ①, ④의 사유는 그 주장자체에 의하여 민사소송법 제451조항에서 정한 재심사유 중 어느 것에도 해당하지 아니함이 명백하고, ②의 사유에 관하여는, ○○지방법원 2000구991호 사건의 기록에 편철된 소송위임장(기록 제299쪽)의 기재에 의하면, 원고는 변호사 이〇〇과 함께 변호사 조〇〇도 원고의 소송대리인으로 선임한 사실이 인정되므로, 그 판결문상에 변호사 조〇〇가 원고의 소송대리인으로 기재된 것을 가리켜 소송대리권의 흠결이 있다고 할 수 없으며, ③의 사유에 관하여는, 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제7호는 재심사유의 하나로 "증인 · 감정인 · 통역인의 거짓진술 또는 당사자신문에 따른 당사자나 법정대리인의 거짓진술이 판결의 증거가 된 때"라고 규정하고 있으므로, 증인이 위증을 하였다 하더라도 그것이 판결의 증거가 된 때에만 재심사유로 주장할 수 있다고 할 것인데, ○○지방법원 2000구991 판결 및 그 항소심인 이 법원 2001누922 판결에서 증인 전〇〇의 증언을 증거로 채용하지 아니한 사실은 기록상 명백하므로, 비록 원고의 주장과 같이 전〇〇이 위증을 하였다 하더라도 그것이 재심사유로 될 수 없고, ⑤의 사유에 관하여는, 1994. 7. 27. 법률 제4770호로 개정된 행정소송법이 1998. 3. 1.부터 시행됨으로써 행정법원이 설치되지 아니한 지역에 있어서는 지방법원 본원이 행정사건의 제1심을 담당하도록 되었으므로, 지방법원 본원인 ○○지방법원이 재심대상판결의 제1심 판결을 선고하였다고 하여 법률에 따라 판결법원을 구성하지 아니한 것이라고 할 수 없다.

Ultimately, all of the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in violation of the exclusive jurisdiction, and it is so revoked ex officio, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.