[2] Whether res judicata effect of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition by a disposition agency as defendant affects the state or local government to which the pertinent disposition belongs (affirmative)

[3] Whether a disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, etc. based on a decision of invalid land grade is automatically null and void (negative)

[2] Since the defendant in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax disposition is the disposition agency, the res judicata in the lawsuit seeking revocation against the administrative agency is against the state or public organization to which the pertinent disposition belongs.

[3] In a case where the head of a Si/Gun did not make a public announcement for perusal or an individual notification in lieu thereof pursuant to Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act after the determination of land grade, or where there is a defect in the ground of invalidation, and thus there is no validity of the determination of land grade, even if he/she made a disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax based on such grade, it is found that there is a defect in the determination of the tax base and the amount of tax by erroneously recognizing the land grade, and such illegality can only be deemed as a defect objectively and objectively, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a defect.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of res judicata (Ground of appeal No. 1 by the attorney)

In a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a tax disposition, the substantive and procedural illegality of the tax disposition is the cause of cancellation, and the object of the trial is the objective existence and validity of the tax base and tax amount, which are the tax obligations recognized by the tax authority's taxation disposition, i.e., the propriety of the relevant taxation disposition, which is the object of the review. If a judgment dismissing a claim seeking cancellation of a tax disposition becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata has become effective, and the plaintiff cannot seek nullification of the final and conclusive judgment which is null and void, and thus, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment dismissed in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the tax disposition also affects the lawsuit seeking nullification of the said disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1880 delivered on June 25, 196). Meanwhile, since the defendant in the lawsuit seeking cancellation is the defendant, res judicata effect in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the tax disposition against the administrative

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that once a judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the instant taxation disposition filed by the plaintiff against the defendant has res judicata effect on the grounds that the instant taxation disposition was legitimate by the final judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the said taxation disposition, the plaintiff cannot seek nullification of the invalidity or seek the return of the tax paid on the premise that the said disposition is null and void due to the invalidation of the instant taxation disposition, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles on the scope of res judicata effect. We do

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the change of land grade (Ground of appeal No. 2 for appeal No. 2)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined whether the tax disposition in this case was null and void due to such defect on the premise that the tax disposition in this case was based on the grade by the decision of invalid land grade because it did not give individual notice in lieu of perusal under Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 668, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter the same) as alleged by the plaintiff, and it did not recognize that the tax disposition in this case was made based on the valid land grade decision after the decision of invalid land grade. There is no reason to criticize the court below on the premise different from the original decision.

3. As to the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the apparentness of a defect in which a tax disposition is void as a matter of course (the ground of appeal No. 3 and the ground of appeal No. 2 by Yoon Young-chul et al.)

If the head of a Si/Gun does not make a public announcement for perusal or an individual notification in lieu thereof pursuant to Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act after the head of a Gun makes a land grade decision, or there is a defect that is the cause of invalidation and thus the decision of land grade is not effective, even if he/she made a disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, etc. based on the grade of the land, it is found that there is a defect in the determination of the tax base and the amount of tax by erroneously recognizing the land grade, and such illegality can only be considered as serious, and thus, it cannot be

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since there is no clear provision or precedent as to Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act at the time of the tax disposition in this case, it is not clear from the interpretation of the above provision as to whether the individual notice substituted for inspection takes effect, and there was no clear provision about the method of individual notice. However, in establishing or modifying the grade of the land in this case, the Seopopo City did not clearly specify the purport of the notice to the Plaintiff who is the land owner, but it is unclear in the contents of the notice. Thus, the above notice cannot be recognized as effective as an individual notice of the whole land. In addition, since the above determination of the grade of the land in this case did not go through the procedure of objection such as a request for examination under Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and the plaintiff's land grade was registered as it was its land land cadastre and it was effective in external form, so it is not clear that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the taxation grade in the land register.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)