Supreme Court Decision 2015Du38481 (Law No. 11, 2015)

The assertion cited as grounds for retrial does not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A peremptory period under Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is filed after the lapse of the peremptory period, and the Plaintiff’s grounds for retrial do not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and does not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and

2015 (Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.)

KimA

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2015Du38481 Decided June 11, 2015

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

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

The grounds for retrial shall be considered.

The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") asserts that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6, 7, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed a final appeal on the ground that the grounds for final appeal constituted a ground for rejection of a final appeal, even though there is a serious mistake of facts, incomplete deliberation, and misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment

However, a lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date when the grounds for retrial become known after the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), barring special circumstances, if the original of the judgment of the court of final appeal is served on the parties, the parties knew of the existence of grounds for retrial by being aware of the omission of the judgment at the time when the judgment was served on the original of the judgment was rendered. Thus, the period of filing a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment of the court of final appeal for the reasons under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be calculated from the time when the original judgment

According to the records, the original copy of the instant judgment subject to retrial was served on June 16, 2015 on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial on August 7, 2015 after the lapse of 30 days thereafter. Therefore, the part of the lawsuit claiming grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful as it was filed after the peremptory period under Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act expires.

In addition, the argument that the plaintiff cited as the remaining grounds for a retrial does not constitute the grounds for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and does not constitute any grounds for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, a retrial suit 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.