1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On October 15, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax as stated in the claim in the Daejeon District Court. On October 15, 2008, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim ( Daejeon District Court 2007Guhap4652).

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment.

B. On June 4, 2009, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2008Nu2895).

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment.

C. On October 29, 2009, the Supreme Court rendered a decision not to proceed with the trial (2009Du10680) that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 2, 2009.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for retrial lies in the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court did not make any judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff had worked as a technical and business director of the Plaintiff Company for the purpose of proving that the Plaintiff did not sell refined oil in the process of the review of the judgment subject to retrial, and that the Plaintiff only caused C, etc. to use the Plaintiff’s official base and ground waste oil tank owned by the Plaintiff

3. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Article 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “No lawsuit shall be filed for retrial when five years have passed after the judgment became final and conclusive,” in relation to the period for filing a retrial.

However, according to the records of this case, the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on November 2, 2009, and it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed five years after it was passed thereafter, and thus, the lawsuit of this case, which failed to observe the period for filing a retrial, is unlawful.

B. Whether there exist any grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da45119, Apr. 1, 201).