1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant lawsuit is deemed to have been withdrawn in accordance with the order of the first instance judgment, and if the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed without examining the illegality of the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on July 11, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the Plaintiff will bring a lawsuit again against the Defendant.

If so, the plaintiff and the defendant can examine the illegality of the disposition of this case since they were found to proceed again as the same case and there is no interest in the litigation economy.

B. Article 268(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “If both parties fail to appear or present at the date of pleading two times, if they fail to make an application for designating a date within one month from the date of pleading on which the plaintiff was not present at the second place, the lawsuit shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.” Thus, the lawsuit in this case shall not be

Meanwhile, Articles 67(1), 67(2), 67(3), and 68 of the Rules on Civil Procedure provide that “The Plaintiff disputing the validity of the withdrawal of a lawsuit under Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act may file an application for designation of a fixed date. In this case, where the court opens oral proceedings and deems that the application is groundless, it shall declare the termination of the lawsuit by judgment.”

According to the records of this case, even though the plaintiff was lawfully served a notice of the date of pleading at the first instance court, the plaintiff was not present on September 16, 2014 at the second date of pleading No. 11:00 and on the third date of pleading No. 10:30 on October 21 of the same year. The defendant litigation performer was present at each of the above dates of pleading, but did not present, and the plaintiff did not apply for the designation of the date within one month from the date of pleading where he was absent at the second date of pleading.