1. Among the instant lawsuits, the part on which the imposition of each value-added tax and the confirmation of invalidity of the public sale disposition are sought and the part on which the payment of money is claimed

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On January 18, 1999, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 500,00,00, value-added tax for the second term of 1995, value-added tax for the first term of 1995, value-added tax for the second term of 2,369,420, value-added tax for the second term of 1995, value-added tax for the second term of 2,369,420, value-added tax for the first term of 195, and value-added tax for the first term of 1,589,830, and imposition of KRW 11,295,150 for the global income tax for the second term of 200.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,589,830 won with 5% interest per annum from October 11, 1999 to the day of complete payment.

On April 11, 2001, the Defendant confirmed that a public auction disposition made on April 11, 2001 with respect to a 996-1 large 346 square meters and 4 same 4 square meters with respect to 996-7 large 527 square meters is invalid.

A. Each disposition of this case

(1) Around December 1996, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the fact that the BB Co., Ltd. BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Co., Ltd”) obtained the input tax deduction of the value-added tax by using false purchase tax invoices issued during the CB Co., Ltd. as evidentiary data; (b) received a confirmation from the BB Co., Ltd. on the following grounds: (c) in fact from the BB Co., Ltd. in January 1994, 12,254,114 in January 1, 1995; (d) 23,694,224 in February 195, 195; and (e) 4,95,89,338 won in total from the DD date for the Plaintiff’s operation; and (e) received a false tax invoice received from the Plaintiff without receiving the tax invoice from the Plaintiff.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff omitted the filing of the sales report of KRW 45,898,338 in total from February 1994 to January 1, 1996; (b) on January 18, 199, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 50,00,00 of the value-added tax for the second term of 1994; (c) KRW 1,225,410 of the value-added tax for the first term of 1995; (d) KRW 2.369,420 of the value-added tax for the second term of 1995; (e) KRW 4,589,830 of the value-added tax for the first term of 1996 (hereinafter “first disposition”); (e) KRW 32,680,300 of the amount of global income for the year 195; and (e) KRW 3680,198 of the Plaintiff’s global income for the Plaintiff’s remaining tax year 1908.

(3) Meanwhile, on November 1, 1998, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of the global income tax of KRW 108.810 (the tax 103,630 + additional 5,180) on the global income tax for interim prepayment in 1998 (hereinafter “instant third disposition”). On December 2, 1999, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 905,930, value-added tax for the second period of December 199 (hereinafter “instant fourth disposition”).

B. The instant public auction disposition

(1) Until October 11, 1999, the Plaintiff paid the total income tax of KRW 3,977,210 remaining after appropriation of the national tax refund of KRW 1,331,420 among the value-added tax on the disposition No. 1 of this case ( August 20, 199) and the total income tax of the disposition No. 3 of this case. However, among the global income tax on the disposition No. 2 of this case, the Plaintiff failed to pay the value-added tax on KRW 10,40,720 remaining after appropriation of the national tax refund of the

(2) On March 27, 200, the Defendant issued a disposition of seizing AAAdong 4, Daegu-gu, 96-1, 346 square meters and 4, the same 96-7 square meters and 527 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, and requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to sell the said real estate on June 5, 200 of the same year (According to the statement of the request for public sale agency, the amount of KRW 11,295,150 among the delinquent local taxes related to the sale, the total amount of KRW 10,40,720, 894,430, and the total amount of KRW 11,295,150, global income tax for which the Plaintiff asserted in the purport of the request for the public sale agency is added to the total amount of KRW 11,186,730,700, and the amount remaining after 10,700,000 won.

(3) On April 11, 2001, the Korea Asset Management Corporation made a public sale order to sell the above real estate to the ChapterGG (hereinafter referred to as the "public sale order of this case"), and on May 10 of the same year, GG completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the public sale order of this case. Meanwhile, on May 11, 2001, the Defendant appropriated KRW 13,792,830, which was allocated in the above public sale procedure of this case, for the remaining global income tax of KRW 12,67,950 (this tax + KRW 10,400,720 + additional dues + KRW 2,267,230), and for the value-added tax of KRW 1,124,80 (this tax + KRW 905,830, additional dues + KRW 219,050).

C. Results of the previous related litigation

(1) First Lawsuit

(A) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the first and second dispositions of this case or seeking confirmation of invalidity thereof (Seoul District Court 2002Guhap8475). However, on June 27, 2003, the Daegu District Court dismissed the lawsuit as to the claim for revocation of the said disposition on the ground that it was unlawful because it did not go through legitimate transfer procedures. The claim for confirmation of invalidity of the said disposition was dismissed on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the certificate prepared by BB public was false.

(B) Accordingly, although the Plaintiff appealed (Tgu High Court 2003Nu1104), this Court dismissed the lawsuit seeking a revocation of the disposition of taxation on February 6, 2004 for the same reasons as the above judgment of the first instance court. Since the Plaintiff completely pays the above value-added tax until October 11, 1999, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking a nullification of the disposition of taxation on February 6, 2004 was dismissed for the reason that it is directly remedying the right to seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of tax payable as a civil lawsuit if the disposition of taxation is null and void, and the filing of seeking a nullification of the disposition of taxation as an administrative litigation cannot be considered as a direct and effective way to resolve the dispute, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal (Supreme Court 2004Du3571, May 17, 2004) was dismissed for the same reason as the above judgment of the first instance court.

(2) Second Lawsuit

(A) After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 (Tgu District Court 2005Guhap4313), but the Daegu District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the grounds that, inasmuch as the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax based on each disposition on Oct. 18, 2006 was fully paid or appropriated for the public auction proceeds as to the instant dispositions on Oct. 1 and 2, 2006, seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the tax payable as a civil lawsuit is a direct remedy if the pertinent disposition is null and void, and it is merely an indirect method to seek confirmation of invalidity as an administrative litigation

(B) Accordingly, while filing an appeal (Tgu High Court 2006Nu2238), the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff’s appeal to the appellate court for the confirmation of invalidity of the public auction disposition of this case. However, on June 22, 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the public auction disposition of this case in the case of 2003Nu1104 and Supreme Court 2004Du3571, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was finally affirmed, which dismissed the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case 1, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was affirmed. Since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the above disposition of this case as to the party and the subject matter of lawsuit of this case after the judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, it cannot be determined contrary to the final and conclusive judgment because the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment cannot be determined because the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the public auction disposition of this case additionally filed against the party who is not qualified for the defendant. The Plaintiff appealed the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1115711).

(3) The third lawsuit

(A) In addition, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea seeking confirmation of invalidity of the public auction disposition against the Korea Asset Management Corporation (Tgu District Court 2003Kadan81413). However, on June 24, 2004, the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on the ground that the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the public auction disposition cannot be considered as a direct and effective method in dispute resolution and there is no interest in the lawsuit. The instant disposition 4 in the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment was not lawfully delivered to the Plaintiff. As such, since the tax notice was not delivered to the Plaintiff, the defect was significant and apparent, and thus, the Republic of Korea has a duty to return value-added tax 1,124,880 won for the second period of February 199, which was distributed to the Plaintiff in the above public auction procedure. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that each of the above dispositions against the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment due to the above dispositions was lawful and dismissed, each of the above dispositions was duly delivered to the Plaintiff at the time of each tax notice.

(B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed (Tgu District Court 2004Na8669), but the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 27, 2004 on the same grounds as the above judgment of the first instance on October 27, 2004, and the Plaintiff appealed (Supreme Court 2004Da64814), but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 14, 2005.

(C) On the other hand, on July 28, 2004, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the instant disposition ex officio. On August 3, 2004, the Defendant decided to refund KRW 1,124,880 and KRW 198,310 for additional dues, which have been appropriated for the public auction proceeds, and on August 4, 2004, deposited each of the above money with the Plaintiff’s fraternity, and completed the refund.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 13-1 through 5, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon the Plaintiff’s notice from the Defendant, KRW 4,589,830 of this case and KRW 11,295,150 of this case’s Disposition 2 of this case’s Disposition 1 of this case’s Disposition 4,589,830, and KRW 11,295,150 of this case’s Disposition 2 of this case’s Disposition 2, the Defendant imposed value-added tax and comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff without any basis of taxation. Moreover, the Defendant did not deliver to the Plaintiff a tax notice, demand notice, attachment notice, etc

B. The Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 4,589,830, which was received on the basis of the first disposition of this case, which is null and void as a matter of course.

C. In addition, a public auction disposition based on the imposition of global income tax, which is void as a matter of course, is also void as a matter of course.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The second disposition of this case and the claim to nullify the invalidity of the public sale disposition of this case

(1) In a case where the existence of a right or legal relation disputed in a lawsuit has already been disputed and a final and conclusive judgment thereon has been rendered between the same parties, the parties cannot make any allegation that conflict with this, and the court may not make any judgment that conflict with this, and as such, the existence of a final and conclusive judgment is a matter to be ex officio investigation, and the court shall not ex officio investigate and determine it (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du1027, Oct. 13, 2006).

(2) As seen above, the judgment against the plaintiff was final and conclusive in the above lawsuit No. 1 against the plaintiff that rejected the plaintiff's claim to nullify the invalidity of the second disposition of this case, and the judgment against the plaintiff that rejected all the plaintiff's second disposition of this case and the lawsuit to nullify the invalidity of the second disposition of this case is final and conclusive.

(3) Even after the judgment against the plaintiff in the above lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2 became final and conclusive, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case where the party and the lawsuit in this case are identical to the plaintiff, and the lawsuit in this case seeking a nullification of the public auction disposition in this case. Since the lawsuit in this case where the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the above lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2 is subsequent to the lawsuit in this case and this court cannot make a decision inconsistent with the above final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the second disposition in this case shall be dismissed without further review, and the lawsuit for nullification of the public auction disposition in this case shall be dismissed

B. The part on the claim for nullification of the first disposition of this case

(1) The Supreme Court precedents, in principle, denied the benefit of a lawsuit in case where there is a remedy such as a performance lawsuit, which is premised on the invalidation of an administrative disposition, and requested the supplementary nature of a lawsuit seeking invalidation confirmation only if the dispute is not settled by other means. As a result, in the event the execution of an invalid administrative disposition is completed, if the form of a lawsuit claiming a return of unjust enrichment and directly removing such unlawful state is opened, it cannot be deemed as a necessary and appropriate means for the settlement of final disputes, and thus, there is no benefit of a lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du6342 Decided March 20, 2008 should consider whether there is a direct remedy such as a performance lawsuit premised on the invalidation of an administrative disposition.

(2) However, when a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the court or the party concerned cannot make a judgment or assertion contrary to the final and conclusive judgment. Such final and conclusive judgment becomes effective on the basis of the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court, which is the standard time, and it does not affect the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment only when a new ground arises thereafter, and as a matter of principle, a new ground arising after closing argument is limited to factual data, and it does not include the change of administrative disposition, which is the basis of the change of law, the change of precedents, or the change of administrative disposition, which is the basis of the final and conclusive judgment (see

(3) As seen above, even though the judgment against the plaintiff was affirmed in the above lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2 against which the plaintiff rejected the lawsuit seeking nullification of the first disposition of this case, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case seeking nullification of the first disposition of this case after the judgment against the plaintiff in the lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2 became final and conclusive, and the parties and the subject matter of lawsuit of this case are identical to the plaintiff. Thus, the court of this case cannot make a decision inconsistent with the above final and conclusive judgment after the final and conclusive judgment against the plaintiff in the lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2 became final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking nullification of the first

C. Part of the claim for money of this case

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the imposition of the above value-added tax is null and void, and filed the instant monetary claim seeking the return of the already paid value-added tax.

(2) However, the subject to whom value-added taxes accrue and the subject to whom the duty to return the invalid value-added tax is the State, and the Defendant, which is merely an administrative agency in charge of the imposition and collection of value-added tax, does not bear such duty to return. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s monetary claim against the

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, among the lawsuits in this case, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition in this case and the part claiming a payment of money shall be dismissed (the monetary claim in this case shall be dismissed, but only the plaintiff shall appeal this case and the judgment in the first instance shall not be modified disadvantageously to him, and the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition in this case shall be dismissed as it is). The part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition in this case in the second instance shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment in