Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Group-5615 (Law No. 18, 2017)

As long as res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects, the court may not make a decision inconsistent with the above final and conclusive judgment.

The objective existence of the disposition imposing capital gains tax, which is the subject matter of this case, has already been finally and conclusively determined, and all of the grounds for the claim are asserted as to the grounds that occurred before the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, and eventually res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment shall also affect this case. Thus, the court cannot render a judgment inconsistent

Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act provides objective scope of res judicata

2017Nu6840 Invalidity of the imposition of capital gains tax

Plaintiff and Appellant

Doz.

Defendant, Appellant

■■세무서장

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan5615 decided July 18, 2017

December 20, 2017

January 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.The decision of the court of first instance shall be corrected as follows:

“1. Of the primary claims, the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax amounting to KRW 120,504,855 is dismissed, and the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax amounting to KRW 46,213,615 is dismissed.

2. The request for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 120,504,855 shall be dismissed among the preliminary claims, and the lawsuit on confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 46,213,615 shall be dismissed.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. In the first instance court, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 166,718,470 on December 11, 2012 against the Plaintiff (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax of KRW 166,718,470 on December 11, 2012 is invalid. In the first instance, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 120,504,85 on the Plaintiff on March 3, 2010 and additional tax of KRW 46,213,615 (the Plaintiff’s imposition of additional tax as of December 11, 2012 is included in the primary purport, but this appears to be a clerical error as of March 3, 2010) is invalid.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows 2, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 3. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 4

2. Revised parts

○ 3rd side "the defendant" added " December 7, 2012."

○ 4 2, 15, 5 1, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 "Revocation" respectively, shall be amended to "verification of Nullity".

○ 4 Under the following 6, 5 below, and 8, 5, and 2 below are amended to “part action”, respectively.

○ 4 To revise each of the following 6 deeds, 5 pages below to “a confirmation of invalidity”, respectively:

○ 4 and below 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 11. .. ....... .........

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts as follows: ① The Defendant determined capital gains tax amount of KRW 147,861,939; KRW 12,050,486; penalty tax of KRW 12,163,129; and penalty tax of KRW 34,163,129; ② The amount of capital gains tax of KRW 147,861,939; additional tax of KRW 0; and additional tax of KRW 147,861,939 as of December 11, 2012; and again, the Plaintiff issued a disposition of KRW 147,861,939; penalty tax of KRW 12,050,486; penalty tax of KRW 34,163,128; and penalty tax of KRW 34,163,128 as of December 11, 2012; and the Plaintiff’s disposition of penalty tax of KRW 147,201.

On October 18, 2012, as recognized in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that "the imposition of additional tax is unlawful" by stating only total sum of the additional tax in the imposition of "2010du12347 on October 18, 2012. The defendant revoked the imposition of additional tax ex officio among the first disposition in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court judgment on December 7, 2012. The defendant did not separately impose capital gains tax of 120,504,855 won on the plaintiff on December 11, 2012. The plaintiff's claim that 12,050,486 won, 34,163,129 won, and 205 won, 250 won, 205 won, 250 won, 205 won, 250 won, 205 won, 205 won, 205 won, 250 won, 201.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax amounting to KRW 120,504,855 is unlawful and dismissed. The part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax is dismissed as it is without merit. The part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax amounting to KRW 120,504,855 is dismissed as it is without merit, and the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing capital gains tax is dismissed as it is unlawful and dismissed as it is. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is obvious that the "cancellation" of the decision of the court of