전소 진행 중에 동일한 소송물에 대한 후소를 제기한 것은 중복된 소제기에 해당됨[각하]
Cho Jae-2015-west-2386 (2015.09)
The filing of a subsequent suit with respect to the same subject matter of lawsuit during the process of the prior suit constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.
The filing of a subsequent suit on the same subject matter of lawsuit during the process of the prior suit constitutes an unlawful subject of rejection as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.
2015Guhap76216 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Value-Added Tax
OOOO
OO Head of the tax office
December 13, 2017
8.01.19
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 13, 2015 against the second value-added tax of 200 won on February 13, 2015 is revoked.
ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit. Although the same subject-matter of lawsuit was filed with different time for the same lawsuit, the suit is withdrawn and dismissed by the time the previous suit is concluded until the closing of argument.
Where transmission has not been terminated, the latter shall be deemed unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.
is the standard for identifying a previous suit and subsequent suit (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23066 Decided November 14, 2017). In such cases, the criteria for identifying a previous suit and subsequent suit
§ 300,000,00,000,00
The effect of continuation of an action against which such action has been brought shall be served on the other party or delivered on the date for pleading.
At the same time (Supreme Court Decision 91Da41187 delivered on May 22, 1992).
However, in full view of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the whole, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for revocation of the disposition, etc. imposing value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "the previous lawsuit") on July 16, 2014, against the plaintiff on October 15, 2013, and the defendant sought revocation of the disposition of increased value-added tax amounting to KRW 000,000, which was already issued on December 16, 2014 against the defendant on December 16, 2014, and the plaintiff sought revocation of the previous disposition of rejection on February 13, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the rejection disposition of this case"). The plaintiff sought revocation of the previous disposition of rejection on May 20, 2015, which had already been issued on behalf of the defendant on December 16, 2014, but sought revocation of the previous disposition of rejection on May 17, 2015.
According to the above facts, the previous suit in this case and the lawsuit in this case are identical to the parties, and the continuation of the lawsuit in this case occurred late compared to the previous suit in this case, and there are no other circumstances to recognize that the previous suit in this case has ceased to exist due to withdrawal, rejection, etc. until now, so the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it constitutes a overlapping lawsuit and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.