2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

Cheong-gu Office

The Seoul Administrative Court's decision 2014 Jae-gu 56 decided June 13, 2014 was revoked, and the disposition of imposition by the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as "defendant") against the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") on March 16, 1996 is invalid, and the disposition of imposition by the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") on March 16, 1996 is revoked, and the above disposition of imposition is revoked.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

A. In 190, the Defendant newly constructed and sold the five-story apartment on the site of OCC 301-7, OCO 1990, and sold the three-story apartment units to BB, which provided one household with 67 square meters out of the above site, and (2) newly constructed six-household units on the site of 246-34 of the same Ri and sold the four-household units among them; (3) newly constructed and sold the two-story apartment units on the site of 246-4 site of the same Ri 246-4, and (4) issued a final tax return on global income tax base in May 1991, the Defendant calculated the global income tax base by deducting 1, 300,000 won from the total amount of the income amount of the 1,300,000 won and 196,000 won from the O's global income tax (excluding 30,000 won from the O's multi-household units).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that “(i) one of the apartment units (i) is transferred in return for the provision of land to BB, the landowner, and ④ The sales price for three of the six households of multi-household houses is the husband of CCC, who is the landowner, and thus, the Plaintiff’s respective payments are included in the Plaintiff’s income, and thus, the instant disposition of this case was unlawful.” On January 29, 1997, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition of this case with the Seoul High Court (97Gu4199) on January 22, 1998, but received each dismissal judgment from the above court, and from the Supreme Court (98Du3457) on May 15, 1998, the final appeal was dismissed.

C. On May 27, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a motion for review of the Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu4199 (Seoul High Court) with the Seoul High Court (98Nu91), but on October 22, 1998, the Plaintiff was sentenced to dismissal by the above court. On November 4, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a motion for review of the Supreme Court Decision 98Du3457 (Supreme Court Decision 98Du3455), but was dismissed by the above court on January 15, 199.

D. The plaintiff asserted that "one of the apartment units ① one household among the apartment units, and three of the six multi-household units, among the above apartment units, were awarded a contract to the plaintiff for the construction of the above real estate and provided the site for the contract, and that the person who engaged in the construction business related to the above real estate did not belong to BB and DD, and the instant disposition of taxation in this case is against the person who is not the taxpayer, and constitutes a rightful invalidation." On January 23, 1999, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition in Seoul Administrative Court (99Gu2580), but on April 22, 1999, the above court dismissed the judgment on the ground that "the res judicata effect of the Seoul High Court 97Gu4199 decided on August 11, 199, violates the res judicata effect of the judgment," and each of the above judgment was affirmed by the Seoul High Court (99Nu5999 decided August 29, 199.

E. Thereafter, on August 31, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a motion for review on the Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu5599 (Seoul High Court) with the Seoul High Court (99Nu616), but was rendered a dismissal judgment by the said court on December 30, 1999. The Plaintiff filed a motion for review on the Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu616 (Seoul High Court) on February 8, 2000; however, on February 1, 2001, the Plaintiff received a dismissal judgment from the said court (201Du2201) from the Supreme Court on May 30, 2004, and thereafter, was dismissed by the said court on June 23, 2001 (201du71). However, the Plaintiff filed a motion for review on the Supreme Court Decision 200Du2201 (201du71) on September 25, 2015.

F. On February 16, 2002, the Plaintiff filed the instant disposition and the Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu4199 with the Seoul Administrative Court (2002Guhap6538). However, on April 18, 2002, the Plaintiff received a judgment dismissing the instant disposition by the said court as a violation of the period for filing a lawsuit and jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court (2002Nu9782) on June 11, 2002, and amended the purport of the purport that “the instant disposition is invalid.” However, on June 19, 2003, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the said court on the ground that “the grounds for invalidation of the instant disposition is the one already asserted before the closing of argument in the Seoul High Court 97Gu4199, and thus it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the said final judgment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 24, 2003.

G. On January 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court (2012 re-Guhap14), but on May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff received a judgment of dismissal on the ground that “the instant lawsuit for retrial is an abuse of the right of action against the principle of good faith and it is not permitted.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2012.

H. After May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court (2012Guhap69). However, on October 12, 2012, the said court rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that “No error was found in the judgment on the merits of the instant case, and the instant lawsuit for retrial was abused its power against the principle of trust and good faith and thus it is not permitted.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2012. On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff again filed a lawsuit seeking nullification and revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court (2012Guhap1444), but on May 3, 2013, the said judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that “the instant lawsuit for retrial was abused against the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, it cannot be accepted on the grounds that it would not be permitted.”

(i) On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the Seoul Administrative Court 2012 Jae-gu 14 and revocation and revocation of the instant disposition. However, on June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the said court on the ground that “the instant lawsuit for retrial is abused against the principle of trust and good faith and thus it is not permitted.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 4, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant judgment for retrial”).

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Although the court's right to trial belongs to the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the exercise of the right to trial is also regulated by the principle of trust and good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial function. Therefore, it would result in bullying of the other party, and further filing of a lawsuit with the same content for obvious reasons that it cannot be accepted by law because it has been rejected in spite of the fact that the lawsuit was filed but has been lost on several occasions and the judgment has become final and conclusive. Furthermore, such lawsuit may not be allowed as a result of an abuse of the right to trial in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da275 delivered on May 28, 199).

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation or confirmation of invalidation of the instant disposition on the same ground as the instant case several times, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the judgment subject to a retrial and confirmation of invalidation and revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of the reasons for rejection, even though the court was sentenced to dismissal or rejection judgment, and on the other hand, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the judgment subject to a retrial and revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of the reasons for rejection, and there is no evidence to acknowledge any special circumstance that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to protection of rights. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is not permissible as it abused the right

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.