beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff
All of the applicants for taking over the EZ proceedings are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The defendant's appeal is examined in the grounds of appeal.
The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, determined that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights as it constitutes an abuse of rights, on December 31, 1998, under Article 96 (2) of the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 8050, Oct. 4, 2006; Act No. 2 of the Addenda to the National Finance Act, No. 8050, Oct. 4, 2006).
In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the extinctive prescription that affected the conclusion of the judgment or failing to deliberate, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, inasmuch as it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription, although the provision that became null and void by the decision, such as the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ba148, August 30, 2018, was applied (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da233686, Nov. 14,
2. As to the appeal by Plaintiffs BH, BI, and BJ, the above Plaintiffs did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and did not submit the grounds of appeal within the submission period.
3. On April 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application to resume the proceedings with the Supreme Court on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application to resume the proceedings died on March 15, 2019.
However, according to the records, following the Defendant’s filing of the appellate brief, the Plaintiff EZ dies after the filing of the appellate brief, and as long as the legal proceedings of the court of final appeal were entered the same phase, the inheritor does not accept the application for resumption of the lawsuit as there is no need to take over the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da56116, Jul. 27, 2016). 4. Inasmuch as an independent party intervention in the application for intervention of an independent party has the nature of filing the lawsuit, the appellate
Supreme Court Decision 93Da43682 delivered on February 22, 1994