[1] Whether the court shall determine ex officio a person who is a party in a lawsuit (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an individual or a corporation filed a petition for a trial on a taxation disposition and died, absorption, etc. during the pre-trial procedure, and the ability of the party was extinguished due to the death, merger, etc., but the decision on the claim was made by indicating the extinguished party as the claimant without being aware of it in the pre-trial procedure, and the heir or the merged corporation filed a lawsuit against the decision

[1] Since a party to a lawsuit is an important matter directly connected to the issue of party capacity, party standing, etc., the court that examines and determines the case must ex officio confirm who the party to the lawsuit and proceed with the hearing by deciding who is the party to the lawsuit.

[2] Although an individual or a corporation had the capacity to be a party due to death, absorption, merger, etc. while filing a petition for a trial with respect to a taxation disposition, a decision on a claim is made by indicating the party who died or was extinguished due to merger as the claimant in the previous trial proceeding. If an inheritor or a merged corporation filed a lawsuit against the decision and recorded the party who was extinguished due to mistake in the complaint as the plaintiff, the party who actually brought the lawsuit is the heir or merged corporation, and as such, the court shall deliberate and determine the merits after receiving an application for correction of the indication of the party to correct the error.

[1] Articles 12, 13, and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 13 of the Administrative Appeals Act; Articles 8(2), 12, 13, and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 51, 233(1), 234, and 249(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du2017 decided Nov. 13, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 63) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12206 decided Dec. 2, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 517) Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu5090 decided Mar. 12, 2009

tin Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Jae-de et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu31748 decided August 18, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Since a party to a lawsuit is directly connected to the issue of party capacity, party standing, etc., the court which examines and determines the case must ex officio confirm and proceed with the trial by confirming who the party to the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Du2017, Nov. 13, 2001; 9Du2017, Nov. 13, 2001; 99Du2017, Nov. 13, 2001; etc.). Although an individual or a corporation ceased the party capacity due to the death or merger during the pre-trial procedure by filing a petition for a trial, etc. on the taxation disposition, a decision on the claim is made by indicating the party who died or disappeared due to the merger as the claimant. If the heir or the merged corporation filed a lawsuit against the above decision and entered the plaintiff as the plaintiff, the party who actually brought the lawsuit is the heir or merged corporation, and thus, the court shall examine and determine the case after receiving an application for correction of party indication to correct it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Nu293Nu93.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, ① tin chemical industry corporation (the representative director Nonparty 1 and 2) entered the instant lawsuit in the court of first instance as the 5th of August 201, 201, and entered it in the non-party 1 corporation (the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 2 corporation corporation, the non-party 2 corporation corporation, the non-party 1 corporation's representative director of the non-party 2 corporation and the plaintiff 1 corporation's non-party 2 corporation's representative representative corporation and the non-party 1 corporation'2 corporation's representative representative corporation.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to consider that, as a result of the merger, Taebong Mining Business succeeds to tax obligations of the instant disposition as a merged corporation surviving the merger, and the validity of the decision of the Tax Tribunal on tin Chemicals is too excessive. However, despite the fact that the Tax Tribunal’s decision was served in the process of a request for a trial filed with tin chemical with the competent Tax Tribunal and it was known that the request for a tin chemical was dismissed, only objection to the disposition of tin Mining Business itself is very unusual; ② Nonparty 1, the representative director of tin chemical, also was the representative director of tin chemical, and Nonparty 1, who was the representative director of the tin chemical, also did not confirm the special circumstances under which the tin chemical should appoint an attorney on behalf of the tin chemical already extinguished without consultation with the Taebong Mining Business, it is reasonable to deem that Taebong Mining Business, as a substantial party, entered the matter of which the Plaintiff’s request for a correction or correction of the case was actually dismissed.

Nevertheless, without examining the aforementioned circumstances in detail, the lower court, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, concluded the party who filed the instant lawsuit as tin chemical, and dismissed the instant lawsuit on the ground that it was instituted in the name of the dissolved corporation through merger, and thus, it was unlawful. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the confirmation of the party, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)