Seoul Administrative Court 2012 Gohap14 (2012.05.04)

Any action brought against the claimant for a cause of the action that was rejected even if the judgment was rendered on the same action shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the imposition disposition or the confirmation of invalidity on the same ground as the case, and the court has received a dismissal or dismissal judgment on the same ground as the case, and again filed a lawsuit of this case with the ground for rejection as the ground for claim and the revocation of the imposition disposition of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff is dismissed.

2014Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing global income tax, etc.

Park AA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Jhap14 decided May 4, 2012

April 25, 2014

June 13, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

Cheong-gu Office

"The Seoul Administrative Court's 2012. 5. 5. 4, 2012. Revocation of the 2012. 5. 4. , and the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") against the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") on March 16, 1996 confirms that the imposition of the global income tax OOOOO and OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO which belongs to the plaintiff

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

(1) The defendant newly constructed five-story units on the 190-190-2 197 OEO 301-7 on the 197-2 9-4 197, and sold them to B. 67 out of the above site, and newly constructed six-household units on the 246-34 site and sold them to 4 households. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 7. 7. 1. 9. 1. 4. 1. 1, the plaintiff's decision was issued on the 99-2 97 . 196 O's 96. 196. 4. 196. 1. 96. 1. 196. 1. 3. 196 O's tax base of global income of 1,300's 96. 19

(4) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case as of January 23, 1999, Seoul High Court Decision 99Gu2580 delivered on April 222, 1999, 200 Seoul High Court Decision 200Nu4199 delivered on August 11, 199, 200, 200Da4199 delivered on August 23, 201, 2000, 200Da4199 delivered on August 23, 200, 200 Da4199 delivered on August 19, 200, 200 Da2019 delivered on September 29, 200, 200 Da3019 delivered on September 29, 199.

F. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition of this case and Seoul High Court 97Gu4199 on February 16, 2002 by 202. 202. The judgment of 202. 2. 2. The plaintiff was dismissed on April 18, 2002 by Seoul High Court 202. 3. 2. The judgment of 201 was dismissed on June 19, 2003, and the above appellate court 2. 3. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2. 2. 2. 201 . 20 . . 3 . . . . 201 . . 3 . 20 . . . 3 . . . . . . 201 . . . 3 . . 201 . . 3 . . 201 . . . . 3 . . . 201 . . . . 3 . . . 207. . . 20. . . . . 20. . . . 20. . . 20. . 20. . . . . 20. . . 20. . . . . . . 20. . . .

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Although the right to trial belongs to the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the exercise of the right to trial shall also be deemed to be regulated by the principle of trust and good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial function. Therefore, it would result in bullying of the other party, and further filing of a lawsuit with the same content for obvious reasons that it cannot be accepted by law because it has been rejected in spite of the fact that the lawsuit was filed but has been lost over several times and the judgment has become final and conclusive. Furthermore, such lawsuit may not be allowed as a result of the use of the right to trial in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da275, May 28, 1999).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation or invalidation of the instant disposition for the same reason as the instant case and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on several occasions, and even if the court was dismissed or sentenced to dismissal, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the judgment subject to review and the confirmation and revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of the reasons for rejection as the cause of claim, and there is no evidence to acknowledge any special circumstance to acknowledge that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to protection of the right. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is not permissible as it abuse of the right against the principle of good faith.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.