1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 596,508,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) imposed on the Plaintiff on January 15, 2013 (in the instant petition for reexamination and amendment, specified on May 3, 2012) by the Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap1045, but was sentenced to the foregoing court’s dismissal judgment on December 4, 2015, and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff on December 7, 2015 and became final and conclusive on December 22, 2015 is significant in this court.

2. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that since the decision subject to a retrial reserves a decision on all agreements that can prove apparent defects in the disposition of this case and the defendant omitted a decision on whether the plaintiff was a title truster, it constitutes "when the decision was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment," which is the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) ex officio, the plaintiff complies with the period for filing a retrial.

Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “The party concerned shall file a lawsuit for a retrial within 30 days from the date on which he/she became aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive,” and barring any special circumstance, if the original copy of the judgment is served on the party concerned, he/she becomes aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial by being aware of the omission of judgment when the judgment was served on the party concerned. Therefore, if the judgment becomes final and conclusive thereafter,

As seen earlier, the facts that the instant judgment subject to retrial was served on the Plaintiff on December 7, 2015 and became final and conclusive on December 22, 2015 of the same year are as follows. The Plaintiff’s ground for retrial exists.