국세환급거부처분 취소청구 등
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.
3...
Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the scope of trial by this Court, provides that “no legal compatibility is possible” means the relationship in which the judgment process for each claim is necessarily mutually combined because the legal assessment of the same factual basis is different, and where the legal effect of one of the two claims is recognized as to one of the two claims, the other is denied, or where both claims cannot be accepted in entirety due to the denial of the legal effect of the other claims, or where either of the facts is affirmed or denied by a selective fact-finding that constitutes the cause of the claims, or where either of the two claims is a result of denying or opposing the other's legal effect by either factual basis or by a selective fact-finding that constitutes the cause of the claims. This includes cases where: (a) one of the two claims has an impact on the grounds of the judgment on the other claims; and (b) the process of judgment on each claim is necessarily mutually combined
Where one of the main co-litigants or the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the final judgment on the claims of other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the appeal shall be transferred to the appellate court, and in such cases, the subject of adjudication on the appeal shall be determined by taking into account the necessity of the final judgment on the conclusion between the main and preliminary co-litigants and their parties.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma515, Jun. 26, 2007). According to the records, the following facts are recognized.
In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s primary defendant is the director of the tax office to revoke the disposition rejecting national tax refund under Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, and the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the conjunctively applied for national tax refund on October 18, 2013 by the Plaintiff.