[행정처분취소청구사건][고집1972특,303]
Whether a judgment on an administrative disposition may be subject to a lawsuit
When there is a ruling by the ruling authority on any administrative disposition in the Korean administrative litigation system, which takes the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule,
Articles 1 and 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 72Nu222 delivered on March 13, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10423Da10423, Supreme Court Decision 21Nu50, Decision 3(6)1192 of the Administrative Litigation Act)
Plaintiff
Governor of Jeollabuk-do
The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. (Defendant A) The decision of re-audit made on February 21, 1972 (Plaintiff A) shall be revoked;
2. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s real estate acquisition tax for Hobbebbe, the 13th square meters of the Plaintiff’s 13th 7th 7th 7th 7th , and imposed the Plaintiff KRW 315,00 per square meter at the tax base (this part is interpreted as seeking the reduction or change of the original disposition). The Defendant paid KRW 125,965 to the Plaintiff.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.
The gist of the plaintiffs' claim is that since the plaintiff et al. were 1, 27-5, 57-58, 60-62 on the ground of 35 lots totaling 13.7 square meters on the ground of Jeonju-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-ju-gun, the plaintiff et al. again dismissed the plaintiff's claim on November 6, 1971 that 10,000 real estate acquisition tax (Do tax) was imposed on 10,00 won as of November 27, 1971 and the notice of tax payment was served on 27.1, 197, the plaintiff et al. again dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the 1,00,000 won and 1,000 won for the above 27.1,00 won for the acquisition tax base of the land of Article 111 of the Local Tax Act, and the defendant again dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the 29.1,000 won per 71.2.37
However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff et al. were subject to imposition of the acquisition tax on real estate by the head of the Gun, and filed a request for examination in sequence with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do and the Minister of Home Affairs in accordance with Article 58 of the Local Tax Act and Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Among them, it is unreasonable for the defendant's branch office of Jeollabuk-do to seek cancellation of the re-audit decision under paragraph (1) of the main claim and seek the return of the amount of tax in arrears under paragraph (2) on the premise of cancellation of the re-audit decision. However, it is obvious that the administrative office that rendered the tax disposition in question by the
Therefore, if an administrative litigation is originally filed by a judicial institution with respect to the illegal administrative disposition of an administrative agency, such revocation or alteration, or other legal relationship of public law, and if it is possible to file a lawsuit (in this case, Article 58 of the Local Tax Act and Article 44, etc. of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) with respect to an administrative disposition pursuant to the provisions of other Acts, it is not possible to file an administrative lawsuit (in the case of a request for reexamination), unless it has been made first after the adjudication, or unless it has been made (in the case of a lawsuit), the administrative litigation cannot be filed (in the case of a lawsuit).
Therefore, it is not clear that the part seeking revocation of the timely decision of the purport of the claim that the plaintiff et al. decided as the ruling authority is unlawful, and the subsequent part of the claim that the plaintiff et al. sought return of the acquisition tax by excessive payment is paid by the plaintiff's argument itself by an improper original tax disposition of the head of the complete Gun, which is the disposition authority, and it was paid to the head of the complete Gun who is the disposition authority in accordance with the purport of the claim. Thus, the claim for return is filed directly against the disposition authority in accordance with the combined litigation procedure, and it is not clear that the plaintiff et al. filed a claim directly against the defendant.
Therefore, all of the defenses raised by the defendant representative to the above purport are reasonable.
Therefore, it is decided as per the disposition in accordance with the principle of the losing party's burden of litigation costs.
[Attachment List omitted]
Judges and soldiers (Presiding Judge)