Request for retrial which does not meet the requirements for a cause for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful and dismissed.

Inasmuch as it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit for review was filed five years after the date on which the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, the instant lawsuit for review is not deemed to have been filed after the expiry of the legitimate period for

Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act: Grounds for Retrial

Article 456 of the Civil Procedure Act: Period for Filing Petition for Retrial

2018Regrix 25 Reinstatement, etc.

○ ○

○ Head of tax office et al.

July 19, 2018

August 30, 2018

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment subject to a retrial is revoked. Since the defendant (limited to the defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") has a duty to reinstate only to the plaintiff (the plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), ○○○○○○○○ 4, 340 square meters, and 11,295,150 won + 1,240,000 won to the taxpayer ○○○ 4,000 won + 8,67,200 won + 1,40.4. Receipt of the transfer of ownership on April 11, 201, which was entrusted with the title of ○○○ 2,000, 200, 200. 4. 7. 4. 4. 7. 4. 4. 4. 20, 201, which was registered as the title of ○○○○ 2,000, 14. 4. 4. 2, 2001.

1. Determination of the original judgment

The following facts may be acknowledged by each description of Gap evidence 1 to 34, and it is obvious in the record or obvious to this court:

A. Each taxation and public auction disposition of the instant case

1) The head of Defendant ○○ Tax Office omitted the Plaintiff’s report on sales of KRW 45,898,338 in total from February 1994 to January 1, 1996. On January 18, 1999, the Plaintiff imposed KRW 500,00 in value-added tax for the second term of 1994, value-added tax for the first term of 1995, KRW 1,225,410 in value-added tax for the second term of 1995, KRW 2,369,420 in value-added tax for the second term of 195, and KRW 495,00 in value-added tax for the first term of 196 (hereinafter “first disposition”), and imposed KRW 32,680,300 in global income for the year 195 and imposed the Plaintiff’s tax amount for the second term of 20,000 in global income for the first term of 198.

2) On the other hand, on November 1, 1998, the head of the Defendant ○○ Tax Office imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 108,810 (the 103,630 won + additional 5,180 won) on the interim prepayment in 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “third disposition of this case”). On December 2, 1999, he imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax of KRW 905,830 for the second period of 199 (hereinafter referred to as the “fourth disposition”).

3) By October 11, 1999, the Plaintiff paid all the remaining 3,977,210 won of the national tax refund and the global income tax on the disposition 3 of this case, which were appropriated as 1,331,420 won among the value-added tax amount on the disposition 1 of this case. However, among the global income tax amount on the disposition 2 of this case, the Plaintiff did not pay 10,400,720 won and the value-added tax on the disposition 4 of this case.

4) Accordingly, on March 27, 2000, on the ground that the Plaintiff was delinquent, Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office imposed a seizure disposition (requisition46120-2191) on the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and requested Defendant ○○ Corporation to sell the instant real estate by public auction on June 5 of the same year.

5) On April 11, 2001, Defendant ○○ Corporation issued a public auction disposition to sell the instant real estate to the Class ○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant public auction disposition”), and on May 10 of the same year, Defendant ○○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on the ground of the instant public auction disposition.

6) Meanwhile, on May 11, 2001, the head of the Defendant ○○ Tax Office appropriated KRW 13,792,830 allocated in the above public sale procedure for the remaining global income tax amounting to KRW 12,667,950 ( KRW 10,400,720 + additional dues KRW 2,267,230) of the disposition No. 4 of this case and KRW 1,124,880 of the value-added tax on the disposition No. 4 of this case ( KRW 905,830 + additional dues KRW 219,050).

(b) Results of the relevant lawsuit

1) The preceding judgment of this case

○ Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○○○○, July 30, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Prior Judgment”).

- Claim: Claim against ○○ (Attorney Kim○-○, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of ○○, which was completed on the instant real estate on the ground that the public auction disposition in this case is invalid.

- The contents of the judgment: Dismissal of the judgment on the ground that the disposition Nos. 2 and 4 of this case, which was the cause of the public auction disposition of this case, is not based on a false certificate, and is not invalid due to no procedural defect in the service of the

- The Plaintiff appealed

○ Daegu High Court Decision 200○○○○○○○ Decided July 2, 2004

- The contents of the judgment: The above disposition of this case is not based on a false certificate, but is not null and void because there is no defect in the delivery of a tax payment notice. On the other hand, the disposition of this case is null and void due to the grave and apparent defect in the delivery of a tax payment notice, but as long as the disposition of this case 2 and the disposition of this case on the basis of this is valid, the public auction disposition of this case on the above real estate cannot be deemed null and void. However, the plaintiff can only receive a refund of the value-added tax amount of KRW 1,124,880 allocated to the above public auction procedure by the head

- Appeal by the Plaintiff

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40863 Delivered on October 29, 2004

- Dismissal of appeal to the Supreme Court for a trial failure

2) The instant judgment subject to a retrial

○ Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○○○ Decided June 8, 2011 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”)

- Claim: ① cancellation of the instant first and third dispositions against Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office; ② invalidity confirmation of the instant public sale disposition against Defendant ○○ Construction; ③ claim against the Defendants for the implementation of the procedure for restitution registration.

- Contents of the judgment

(1) Part on Claim: The part on Claim for Revocation of Disposition No. 1 of this case is dismissed on the ground that the part on Claim No. 3 of this case did not request an examination or a trial under Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes within 90 days from the date of notice of disposition, for the reason that there is no evidence to

(2) Part of claims: Dismissal for lack of legal interest.

(3) Claim portion: Rejection of a lawsuit seeking an execution judgment under the Administrative Litigation Act for the reason that it is not permitted.

- The Plaintiff appealed

○ Daegu High Court Decision 2011Nu1550 decided April 20, 2012 (Final Decision)

- The portion of the claim: The part of the claim for revocation of the Disposition No. 1 of this case cannot be judged inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment of the lawsuit No. 1, and the part of the claim for revocation of Disposition No. 3 of this case

- Part of claim: Rejection for reasons that it cannot be judged inconsistent with a final and conclusive judgment.

- Part of claim: An action seeking an execution judgment under the Administrative Litigation Act is not allowed, and even in the case of being considered as a civil action, the head of defendant ○○ Tax Office shall dismiss it on the ground that

(iii) any other action.

○○ Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○○○○ (Partial dismissal and dismissal of a lawsuit), the Daegu High Court Decision 200○○○○○○○ (Partial dismissal and dismissal of a lawsuit), February 6, 2004 (Partial dismissal and dismissal of a lawsuit), and the Supreme Court Decision 200○○○○○○○○○ (Seoul High Court) Decided May 17, 2004 (Dismissal of a final appeal)

○○ Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○○○ (Dismissal of Lawsuit) Decided October 18, 2006, Daegu High Court Decision 2000○○○○○○ (Dismissal of Lawsuit) Decided June 22, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 200○○○○○○ (Dismissal of Appeal and Dismissal of Lawsuit) Decided September 20, 207, and Supreme Court Decision 200○○○○○○ (Dismissal of Appeal without Trial) Decided September 20, 2007 (Dismissal of Appeal)

○○○○○○○○○○○, which was decided June 24, 2004 by the Daegu District Court (Partial dismissal of a lawsuit, partial acceptance of a lawsuit), the Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○, which was decided October 27, 2004 (Dismissal of Appeal), and Supreme Court Decision 200○○○, which was decided January 14, 2005 (Dismissal of Appeal) (Supreme Court Decision 200○○, which was decided January 14, 2005).

○○ Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○○ (Partial dismissal, dismissal of a claim) Decided July 23, 2008, and Daegu High Court Decision 200○○○○○○○○ (Partial dismissal, dismissal of a lawsuit) Decided April 2, 2010 (Partial dismissal, dismissal of a claim)

○○ Daegu District Court Decision 200○○○○○ (Dismissal of Lawsuit) Decided October 6, 2010, and Daegu High Court Decision 200○○○○○○ (Dismissal of Lawsuit) Decided April 20, 2012 (Dismissal of Appeal) Decided April 20, 2012 (Dismissal of Appeal)

C. Ex officio revocation of the Disposition No. 4 of this case

The director of the tax office of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ on June 24, 2004 revoked the instant disposition on July 28, 2004 pursuant to the Daegu District Court Decision 2000○○○○○○○○○○ on July 28, 2004. On August 3 of the same year, the head of the tax office decided to refund KRW 1,124,880 (= principal tax + KRW 905,830 + additional dues KRW 219,050) and additional dues KRW 198,310, and completed the refund by depositing the said amount with the Plaintiff’s account on the fourth day of the same month.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

There are grounds for retrial as follows in the above decisions up to the judgment subject to a retrial based on the beginning of the preceding judgment of this case.

A. The Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name stipulates that any change in the real right to real estate made by the registration under a title trust agreement shall be null and void, and the judge in charge of the preceding judgment in this case did not comply with the above Act and did not render a judgment in accordance with the above Act even though each registration stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant real estate, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, is null and void, and there is a ground for retrial of “when a judge, who is not entitled to participate in the said judgment, was involved in the said

B. Since the Category ○○ did not delegate an attorney-at-law to Kim○○, there were grounds for retrial of the preceding judgment of this case “when there is any defect in granting authority necessary for the attorney to conduct the procedural acts” (No. 3).

C. The prior rulings of this case, which were not based on the submission of evidence, such as a written confirmation to the effect that each disposition of this case is null and void, are in violation of the rules of evidence, and there are grounds for retrial "when the submission of methods of attack or defense that may affect the judgment is obstructed by the act of another person subject to criminal punishment", "when the judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, has been changed by any other judgment or administrative disposition, has been reversed by any other judgment or administrative disposition," and "when any judgment has been omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment" (paragraphs 5, 8

D. Since the employee of Defendant ○○ Tax Office led to a confession of the fact that he forged an official document to the Plaintiff, there was evidence of the instant judgment, there was grounds for retrial of the instant judgment “when the documents and other items as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered” (No. 6).

Therefore, the instant judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked, and both changes in real rights and registration of the instant real estate stated in the purport of the claim based on each of the above dispositions are null and void.

3. Determination

A. As long as the grounds for a retrial arose after a final judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, or unless it is contrary to a final and conclusive judgment rendered before the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive, no lawsuit is filed at the lapse of five years after the final and conclusive judgment subject to a retrial (see Articles 451(1)10, 456(1)3, (4), and 457 of the Civil Procedure Act). Whether a petition for a retrial was filed within the above period constitutes a matter of ex officio examination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1322, Oct. 24, 1989).

B. The instant judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on May 11, 2012, and the record that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the retrial of this case on January 24, 2018 after the lapse of five years thereafter is apparent. As such, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful as it was filed subsequent to the lapse of the lawful period for filing a retrial.

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion also argues the defect of power as a ground for retrial. However, the instant judgment subject to retrial was directly conducted by the Plaintiff without his agent, and thus does not constitute a ground for retrial.

D. The Plaintiff’s above assertion also includes the purport that there are grounds for a retrial in the preceding judgment of this case, but this does not constitute legitimate grounds for a retrial since it is not against the judgment subject to a retrial. There are no legal grounds or evidence to deem that the grounds for a retrial for the preceding judgment of this case are succeeded to the judgment subject to a retrial. Accordingly, this does not constitute legitimate grounds for a retrial

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.