The above taxation disposition is legitimate because the judgment dismissing the claim for cancellation of the taxation disposition became final and conclusive.

Res judicata in relation to the fact that the plaintiff was not determined in the above administrative case.

The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff does not have res judicata effect against the claim, but the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff are relevant administration.

Before the closing of argument in the fact-finding case, attack and defense as to the legitimacy of the above taxation disposition

It is nothing more than a different method, and it is irrelevant to the occurrence of res judicata. Furthermore, it is an argument that is irrelevant to the occurrence of res judicata.

Since the instant lawsuit is based on the premise that the instant taxation disposition is null and void, the relevant administrative case finalized.

Legal relations of this case affect res judicata as a preliminary question of the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the court of this case

Unlike the above administrative case, the determination of the legality of the taxation disposition cannot be made.

(2) In addition, the taxation of this case by the director of the tax office is national tax (Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

No. 1) As such, res judicata of the above administrative case is to the defendant Republic of Korea, who is the person to whom the national tax belongs.

this Act.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit to examine further.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 00

A. As to the assertion against res judicata

Related administration with which the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant taxation disposition became final and conclusive.

The parties to the case are the directors of the tax office of 000 of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Republic of Korea.

not extend to the 00 city, the third party, the defendant 00 city. The defendant 00 city

Part of the argument is without merit.

B. Whether the instant taxation disposition is invalid

(1) In order for a taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, only if there is an unlawful cause for the taxation.

that the defect is in violation of the important laws and regulations and is objectively apparent.

in determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the tax disposition in question shall be

The purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis thereof, shall be considered as an objective and specific case.

It is necessary to reasonably consider the characteristics of its own (Supreme Court Decision 11 November 1990).

27. In addition, there is a defect that misleads the factual basis in an administrative disposition.

If it is objectively unclear even if the defect is serious, the disposition shall be void automatically.

In order to establish a clear and apparent defect, the fact constitutes a basis for the mistake of the facts.

It lacks external appearance, or objectively recognizes the authenticity of its establishment or content;

must be the case where it is apparent that it is not possible to do so, and must accurately investigate the data on the facts.

Only if the existence of the defect can be clarified, such defect is obvious in appearance.

It would not be possible (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6863 delivered on April 28, 1992).

(2) In the real estate register of this case, as seen earlier, the transaction value in the real estate register of this case

This case is described as KRW 4,57,600,000, in the course of the proceeding of the relevant administrative case.

claim that the actual transaction value of the land is KRW 4,148,166,00,00 or corresponding thereto;

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to prove that a letter (No. 3) was submitted, the land of this case

transaction value recorded in the real estate registry is different from the actual transferred value and thus the instant taxation disposition is deemed to have been rendered.

In order to determine whether the plaintiff's assertion that the invalidation is void, the transaction and particulars of the registration, and the annexed agreement.

It is necessary to examine data on the establishment of a petition, taking into account such circumstances.

At the time, even if there is any defect claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant taxation disposition, it is apparent that it appears.

Therefore, it is difficult to view this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay 197,321,693 won and its amount from May 9, 2016 to Defendant Republic of Korea; 19,276,627 won from June 11, 2015 to the service date of a copy of each complaint of this case; 5% per annum from June 11, 2015 to the service date of a copy of each complaint of this case; and 15% per annum from the following to the day of full payment.

A. Details of taxation disposition

(1) On Feb. 25, 2002, the Plaintiff and Magsung acquired 1/2 shares of 0,00 - 00 - 00 - 320-6 - 320-6 - 6,265 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 28, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to a third party (hereinafter “instant transfer”). (2) On the premise that the instant land is a business land, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value as the standard market price on September 28, 2006, based on the premise that it is a business land, and reported that there is no amount to pay the transfer income tax for the year 2006 on September 28, 2006.

(3) On July 3, 2008, the director of the tax office became subject to regular audit and inspection by the director of the regional tax office of 00,000 won, which is the actual transaction value of the pertinent land as the land for non-business purpose subject to the reporting of actual transaction value. Accordingly, he identified the transaction value of 4,557,600,000 won, which is the transaction value stated in the real estate registration book of the instant land as the actual transaction value. On July 3, 2008, he decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 334,314,154, and additional tax amount of KRW 73,248,231, which is the actual transaction value of the instant land for non-business purpose (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”). (4) On April 24, 2009, the Tax Tribunal decided to review the actual transaction value of the instant land for non-business purpose and to correct the relevant tax base and tax amount by re-auditing it.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant taxation disposition is unlawful and thus ought to be revoked, and filed a lawsuit against the Director of the Tax Office seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition.

(2) On April 1, 2010, the 00 District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s above claim on the ground that the instant taxation disposition was lawful (00 district court 2009Guhap27771). The Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal against it were dismissed (00 high court 2010Nu701, Supreme Court 2010Du22726) and the said 00 district court’s judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2010. The Plaintiff’s unpaid amount of tax payable.

On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff paid to Defendant Republic of Korea capital gains tax of KRW 334,314,154, penalty tax of KRW 73,248,231, additional dues of KRW 305,212,070, Defendant 00, around June 11, 2015, KRW 40,756,230, additional dues of KRW 28,876,680, and KRW 28,876,680. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff paid to Defendant Republic of Korea KRW 334,314,154, and KRW 73,248,231, additional dues of KRW 305,212,00, and KRW 28,876,680, each of the facts without dispute, KRW

A. The plaintiff

The transfer of this case, including the land of this case, is subject to additional 30,000 won 0,000 won 282 382 38,000 won (hereinafter “38”) and 38,000 won 37,000 won. It is not clearly specified the transfer value by object. ① The transaction value stated in the real estate register 30,388, 370,000 won is less than the market value. The transfer value of the land of this case and 338 real estate register is included in 47, 97, 207, 47, 207, 47, 207, 47, 40,000 won and 47, 97, 40,000 won and 57, 47,07,000 won and 47,07,000 won and 47,000 won and 97,000 won and 27,01,06,0.

B. The Defendants’ lawsuit is against the res judicata effect of the judgment on the relevant administrative case that became final and conclusive, and the instant taxation disposition is a legitimate disposition as determined in the relevant administrative case judgment.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Relevant legal principles

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, the substantive and procedural illegality of the taxation disposition is the cause of revocation, and the subject matter of the trial is the objective existence of the tax base and tax amount, which are the tax obligations recognized by the taxation authority, that is, the propriety of the taxation disposition concerned, and the validity of the judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the taxation disposition becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the plaintiff cannot seek nullification of the final and conclusive judgment which is null and void. Thus, res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment dismissed in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition also extends to the lawsuit seeking nullification of the said taxation disposition. Since the defendant in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition is the disposition authority, res judicata effect in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition against the administrative agency concerned extends to the state or public organization to which the pertinent disposition belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da10854, Jul. 24, 1998). In addition, when the issue of res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, the judgment of the previous lawsuit becomes a prior question of res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da684, Apr. 27, 1994.

B. Determination

(1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s objection in the relevant administrative case