logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019. 11. 15. 선고 2019두50328 판결
(심리불속행) 행정소송법 제8조 제2항 규정에 따른 판단누락으로 인한 재심대상판결 해당여부[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court-2019-Reu-10017 (Law No. 17, 2019)

Title

(Incompetence of Trial) Whether an administrative decision is subject to a retrial due to omission of judgment pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Summary

(2) The court below's rejection of a petition for retrial on the ground that the court below's omission of judgment as a ground for retrial is not a ground for retrial.

Related statutes

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

Cases

2019du50328 Demanding confirmation of invalidity of the designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment

Plaintiff-Appellant

○ ○

Defendant-Appellee

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2019Nu10017 Decided July 17, 2019

Imposition of Judgment

November 15, 2019

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs).

Reasons

Examining the grounds of appeal by the lower court, it is evident that the appellant’s ground of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and therefore, all appeals are dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow