Cho High Court Decision 2004Do1056 (O6.07)

No ground for retrial exists.

The plaintiff makes a claim that cannot be claimed as a retrial in the litigation of retrial of this case, and the decision of this case is dismissed as the judgment of this case is not clearly indicated as a judgment, without lawfully amending the purport of the request for retrial and the grounds for the request for retrial in two orders of correction.

2013. Revocation, etc. of Claim for Rectification

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan26124 decided May 22, 2012

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

July 31, 2013

1. All the lawsuits for the retrial of this case (the main claim and the conjunctive claim) shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

1. The primary purport of the claim

OO-si OO-dong OO-dong No. 649, BB apartment No. 98 809, A-A-A-A-B apartment No. 809, A-A-A-A-A-A-U-A-A-A-A-U-A-A-A-U-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-U-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-U-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-

2. Preliminary purport of claim

As the OOO-gu OOO-dong No. 649, BB apartment8, 809, prior to October 1, 2004, the capital gains tax correction resolution was not required to give notice to ASEAN under Article 91 of the Property Tax Management Regulations, and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the year 2003 shall be revoked on October 1, 2004.

In the litigation of retrial in this case, the plaintiff has filed a claim which cannot be claimed as a retrial, and the purport of the petition for retrial and the grounds for the petition for retrial have not been amended lawfully, and the judgment subject to retrial has not been stated accurately and clearly (However, this court considered the Seoul Administrative Court Decision No. 2011Gudan26124, May 22, 2012, which is the first instance judgment among documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff, as the judgment subject to retrial). Even if the content of the assertion is obvious that there is no ground for retrial, there is no way to correct the defect properly, and thus, it is not a way to correct the defect properly. Accordingly, it is so decided as per Disposition by dismissing without pleading pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and