Seoul High Court 2011Nu3267 (Law No. 14, 2011)

early 209west2266 (Law No. 19, 2010)

(Recompetence of Trial) Any amendment of the amended Act, which is a result of the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution, shall not be applied retroactively.

(C) The Supreme Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution constitutes a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Supreme Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which is a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, declared the provisional application of the unconstitutional law or the provisions of the unconstitutionality Act, and thus, the amended Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act

2011Du18830 The revocation of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax

New XX 7 others

The Head of Gangnam District Tax Office et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu3267 Decided July 14, 2011

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's grounds of appeal fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

Reference materials.

If the grounds of final appeal are not included in the grounds of final appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of trial without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal, and refers to the system of dismissal of final appeal by judgment without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal (see this case, e.g.,