B. Even though a judgment of dismissal was rendered, the judgment of dismissal was made, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal exists.

B. In a case where only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of retirement, the change of the decision of dismissal in the judgment of dismissal shall return to the disadvantage of the appellant, which led to the absence of the plaintiff's interest in appeal. Ultimately, the plaintiff's appeal on this point is without merit.

(c) In a lawsuit seeking the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, it is not necessary to satisfy the requirements for the relocation of a lawsuit.

D. Even if the instant additional disposition of inheritance tax and the disposition of imposing income tax were to be erroneous or misleading the legal relations or certain facts subject to inheritance, it cannot be deemed that the said disposition of imposing tax is null and void as a matter of course only by mistake of the head of a tax office.

E. In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing real estate income tax, if the plaintiff did not claim that the extinctive prescription under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Exemption from Liability for Payment of Unpaid Taxes has expired until the argument of the court below is concluded, the argument that the original judgment was erroneous by failing to apply the above provision of the

F. Even if a judgment of retirement to dismiss a request was rendered, if only the plaintiff appealed, the judgment of retirement should be changed to the disadvantage of the appellant by the judgment of dismissal of the appeal shall be changed to the disadvantage of the appellant, which eventually means that there is no benefit of the plaintiff's appeal.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion that the legal relation which is the object of taxation or the taxation without certain facts is justified because it is apparent and apparent that the plaintiff's disposition of imposition of income tax is null and void because of significant and apparent defects. If the disposition of imposition of tax is null and void as alleged by the plaintiff, it is evident that the necessity of imposition of tax can be asserted that it would be unnecessary to go through the source of lawsuit, etc., and in this lawsuit, it is unnecessary not to satisfy the requirements of imposition of tax. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim is improper because it is improper to satisfy the requirements of imposition of tax, and it is unlawful to review the lawsuit on the merits because it is improper for the court below to determine that the plaintiff's request for revocation of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax and income tax is unlawful because it is not clear that the plaintiff's request for revocation of the disposition of imposition of tax cannot be viewed as a mistake by the head of tax office, and it is obvious that the plaintiff's request for revocation of the disposition of imposition of tax cannot be seen as invalid only because it is a ground for revocation of the plaintiff's's appeal.

Next, the argument that the administrative disposition imposing income tax on real estate in this case, among the arguments of the appeal, is naturally exempted from liability for tax payment under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Exemption from Liability for Payment of Taxes in Arrears, is that the statute of limitations has expired on or before December 31, 1960 as of January 31, 1962. Thus, the argument that there is no illegality in the application of unlawful provisions in the original judgment because it is obvious that the plaintiff did not assert the expiration of the statute of limitations until the argument of the original court is closed even if the statute of limitations as stated above on the income tax on the real estate in this case has expired by the record that the plaintiff did not assert the expiration of the statute of limitations until the argument of the original court.

Finally, the court may decide whether to grant the application for the resumption of pleading by the party at its discretion, and it is not erroneous in the court below's rejection of the application for the resumption of pleading by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's application for the resumption of pleading is justified, and the plaintiff's application for the resumption of pleading has no obligation to explain the method of evidence even if it is called to apply for evidence such as the theory of the lawsuit in the grounds for the resumption

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags