Cho High-2010-S-0191 (Law No. 223, 2010)

It is impossible to re-examine the same contents as each other even though the request for retrial has been rejected several times, unless there is a special reason to the contrary, it is retired as abuse of right.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is retired as abuse of right of action, barring special circumstances, and even if it is not so, the plaintiff's assertion does not constitute a ground for retrial and is subject to retirement.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

Seoul High Court-2019-Reu-10055 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

m. Head of tax office

June 8, 2012

October 11, 2019

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 subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 13,783,580 on October 5, 2009 rendered by the defendant (the defendant for a retrial) against the plaintiff on October 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

The exercise of the right to a trial is also regulated by the principle of trust and good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial functions. It is obvious that the court may not accept the request for retrial on several occasions on the grounds that it cannot be accepted by law, even though it has been rejected due to the same reason, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da2063, Apr. 29, 2016).

In light of the records, the plaintiff filed a request for retrial several times on the grounds the same as or similar to the lawsuit of this case, and received a dismissal judgment. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is repeatedly filed on the grounds the same as or similar to the previous request for retrial, and thus, it cannot be permitted as it constitutes abuse of the right of action.

Thus, since the lawsuit of this case is an inappropriate lawsuit and thus its defects cannot be corrected, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.