1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Although the relevant legal doctrine and the same subject matter of lawsuit have been filed differently from the parties to the same lawsuit, where the pending lawsuit has not been extinguished due to withdrawal or rejection of the previous lawsuit by the time the closing of argument in the subsequent lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as it constitutes a overlapping lawsuit.

The criteria for determining a previous suit and a subsequent suit are followed by the prior suit and the criteria for identifying a previous suit and subsequent suit are followed after the date of the occurrence of the lawsuit, and where there is an additional change in the lawsuit, the effect of the continuation of the lawsuit added shall take effect when the document is served on the other party or is delivered on the date of pleading.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da41187 delivered on May 22, 1992). B.

1) On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition of increase in value-added tax of KRW 554,296,890 against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2013, as the court 2014Guhap63169, the Defendant sought revocation of the disposition of increase in value-added tax of KRW 554,296,890 against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2013 (hereinafter “instant prior suit”).

(2) On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the correction of reduction of KRW 230,495,860 for the first time value-added tax of KRW 230,495,860 for the Plaintiff’s substitute payment and KRW 242,20,290 for the second time value-added tax of KRW 201 for the year 201. However, on September 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting all the claims for the correction of reduction (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

3) On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant refusal disposition with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on March 9, 2015. (4) On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the purport of the instant refusal disposition with the purport of adding the claims for revocation to the instant refusal disposition in the previous suit, and the duplicate was served on the Defendant on June 8, 2015.

5 The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant rejection disposition on June 5, 2015, and the duplicate of the complaint on June 18, 2015.