beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. On January 14, 2016, the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) omitted a judgment on important arguments and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including whether the Defendant’s disposition stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff was made within the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes.
Therefore, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, except as otherwise provided for in this Act,
Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act may file a lawsuit for retrial on a final judgment that has become final and conclusive, in any of the following cases:
Provided, That this shall not apply in case where the parties have asserted the grounds by an appeal or have known them to the public.
9. When the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment, there is a ground for retrial prescribed in the Review Division (the plaintiff is written in the Review Division as “No. 10, but it appears to be a clerical error).
2. Determination
A. According to the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a party may not file a lawsuit for retrial, unless the party has asserted, or did not know, grounds for retrial by
In addition, if an original copy of judgment is served on a party to a lawsuit, the party to the lawsuit shall be deemed to have known of the omission of judgment when the original copy of judgment was served on the party to the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991). Barring any special circumstance, the party to the lawsuit shall be deemed to have known of the omission of judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991).