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

2. In the first place, on May 1, 1997, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 8,102,720 on global income tax for the Plaintiff in 191, and confirmed the invalidity of the said disposition in preliminary terms (the Plaintiff stated the disposition amount as KRW 8,162,720 on January 20, 201, but it appears to be erroneous).

A. Disposition of this case

On May 1, 1997, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 8,102,720 on the Plaintiff for the reason that the Plaintiff filed a final return of global income tax base in 1991, on the grounds that the Plaintiff omitted or under-reported the amount of revenue (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(b) Final judgment;

On April 11, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (the above court 98Guh 3678) seeking revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant with the Seoul Administrative Court (the above court 98Guh 3678), but the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 26, 1998, and the above judgment was finalized around that time as the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 98Nu9853) was dismissed on October 15, 1998.

(c) Other lawsuits;

1) On September 7, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court 99Gu26692, but the said court decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on December 17, 1999 on the ground that it conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered by the Seoul Administrative Court 98Gu3678, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial with the Seoul Administrative Court 200 Jae-gu 15 on the grounds that the judgment on the petition for invalidation was denied. On March 22, 2000, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing a petition for retrial on the grounds that the grounds that the grounds for retrial are not recognized on March 22, 2000. The above judgment was finalized by dismissal of the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 200Nu148) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2001Du328).

3) On February 24, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition again with the Seoul Administrative Court 2003Guhap5822, and the said court on May 22, 2003, rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of a taxation disposition is also not in a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the said disposition. Therefore, the said lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity is against the res judicata of the said judgment rendered by the Seoul Administrative Court 98GuMa3678, which is a final and conclusive judgment on the claim for revocation of the instant disposition. The said judgment was finalized by the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2003Nu19045), and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2004Du12612).

4) On August 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial with the Seoul Administrative Court 2003Guhap5822 Decided August 2, 2005, on the ground that there was a ground for a retrial for a rejection of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing a petition for retrial on the ground that the period for filing a retrial expires after November 24, 2005, and the said judgment was finalized on December 21, 2005.

5) On December 24, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court 2005Guhap41365 on December 24, 2005. On April 13, 2006, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit without a judgment on the merits on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit violates the principle of trust and good faith and thus it is not permissible to abuse the right of action. The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 7, 2006.

6) On May 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act with the Seoul Administrative Court 2005Guhap41365 Decided May 10, 2006 on the ground that there was a ground for a retrial of the judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the said court rejected the petition for retrial on July 26, 2006 on the ground that there was no ground for a retrial of the judgment of the above court. The said judgment was finalized on August 26, 2006.

7) On May 9, 2007, the plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that there is a ground for a retrial for a deviation from the market under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Seoul Administrative Court Act. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on September 28, 2007 on the grounds that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the principle of trust and good faith cannot be permitted to be abused. The above judgment was finalized on June 13, 2008 as the plaintiff's appeal (Seoul High Court 2007Nu30699) was dismissed.

8) On January 5, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act with the Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap14, on the ground that there was a ground for a retrial for a revocation of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on May 21, 2009 on the ground that it cannot be permitted to abuse the Plaintiff’s right of action. The above judgment was finalized on January 5, 2009 as the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2009Nu16802) was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, while making the same assertion in the Seoul Administrative Court case No. 98Gu3678, the plaintiff sought the revocation of the disposition of this case and the preliminary invalidity of the revocation of the disposition of this case around February 26, 1998, together with the revocation of the above Seoul Administrative Court Decision No. 98Gu3678.

B. Determination

The exercise of the right to a trial is regulated by the principle of trust and good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial functions. Therefore, even if a court has been rendered a judgment of retirement on several occasions for the same reason, and the judgment has become final and conclusive, it would result in the other party's harassment and further may cause confusion in the unnecessary consumption of judicial personnel and judicial functions. Such a lawsuit may not be permitted as it abuse the right to a lawsuit in violation of the principle of trust and good faith unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da414, Apr. 24, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 200Da421, Apr. 24, 2000).

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition or the revocation of a final and conclusive judgment, at least 12 years from 1998 to 12 years from the filing of the instant lawsuit, and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition or the revocation of a final and conclusive judgment, and was dismissed or dismissed, and the instant lawsuit is filed again with the same content despite the Supreme Court, the first instance court, or the second instance judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the instant lawsuit is not permissible as it abuse the right of action in violation of the principle of good faith.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is all unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.