Whether the existence of a final and conclusive judgment is subject to ex officio investigation (affirmative), and whether the parties can newly assert and prove the existence of a final and conclusive judgment in the final appeal (affirmative)

Articles 26 and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act [General]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Regional Tax Office (Law Firm Han-soo, Attorneys Lee Jong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu12020 delivered on August 18, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

In a case where the existence of a right or legal relation disputed in a lawsuit has already been disputed and a final and conclusive judgment thereon has been rendered between the same parties, the parties cannot make any arguments that conflict with this, and the court may not make any judgment that conflict with this. In addition, the existence of a final and conclusive judgment above is an ex officio investigation, and the existence of a final and conclusive judgment is a matter to be examined and determined by the court ex officio, and even if the parties did not assert the existence of a final and conclusive judgment by the time the arguments are

According to the records, the lawsuit in this case is obvious that the plaintiff is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of removal from his position against the plaintiff on April 7, 1973. Meanwhile, according to the data submitted by the defendant's attorney after the filing of the appeal in this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the same claim in this case against the defendant around 198, but was ruled against the defendant on May 15, 1989 on the ground that the removal from position cannot be deemed null and void from the Seoul High Court (number omitted). It is recognized that the decision dismissed on February 23, 1990 and became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the claim in this case shall have res judicata effect on the above final judgment, and it shall be dismissed. As long as only the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court below which rejected the lawsuit in this case, the judgment of the court below which is not favorable to the plaintiff is maintained in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)