Supreme Court Decision 2014Du385 ( December 11, 2014)

The fact that there was error in the determination of the original judgment does not constitute grounds for retrial.

The grounds alleged by the plaintiff (the plaintiff) as the grounds for retrial do not constitute grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2014du545 Transfer Income Tax and Claim for Refund Money

United Kingdom A

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du385 Decided December 11, 2014

March 26, 2015

The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

Examining the grounds for the instant request for retrial in light of the content of the judgment subject to retrial, it is difficult to recognize that there exists any grounds for retrial, such as Article 451 subparag. 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment) in the judgment subject to retrial, solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff for retrial). Other grounds asserted by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff for Retrial) are all relevant

Therefore, the retrial of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.