Daegu District Court 2012Guhap1572 (13, 2013.09)

Non- Transit of Appeal

A claim to reinstate the registration of the real estate sold due to the public auction after refunding the overpaid or erroneously paid amount;

Regardless of whether the nature of the claim for refund against the defendant is seen as a party suit under the Administrative Litigation Act or as a civil suit, the defendant is not recognized as a party's ability or defendant's standing to claim this part of the claim, and since the party's ability and defendant's standing to claim the refund in the lawsuit in this case fall under the litigation requirement, so long as there is such defect, the part of the claim for payment

Administrative Litigation Act No. 13

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke and refund the amount paid at the time of the imposition of the value-added tax requested by the plaintiff on January 18, 199, (1) the value-added tax occasional amount of the first public auction, 200 won in 194, 1995, 200 won in 195, 1995, and 100 won in 196; and (2) the value-added tax imposed on December 2, 199, which was requested by the second public auction agent, shall not exist in the imposition of the value-added tax on January 4, 200, 200, 300 won in the global income tax amount of the second public auction, and 970 square meters in the global income tax amount of the third public auction agent, 300 square meters in the global income tax amount of the third public auction agent, and 974-197 square meters in the real estate amount of the third public auction.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows, in addition to the following, the decision on the claim for the payment of the refund of this case as stated in Chapters 14 through 17 of the first instance court's decision, and therefore, it is identical to the statement of the first instance court's decision. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

Next, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of refund money following the revocation of the first disposition of this case, which is a claim for monetary payment against the Defendant, and does not constitute an appeal litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act seeking the revocation of the disposition.

The head of the tax office, such as the defendant, is recognized as a party ability and defendant standing in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of the defendant's disposition in accordance with the special provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 13 and Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Act), but is merely the head of the administrative agency, which is the head of the agency in charge of the imposition and collection of taxes, which is not the subject of the rights and obligations, and thus has no capacity to do so under substantive law. The party ability and defendant standing in the administrative litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act) is not recognized, and only the party standing in the

Ultimately, regardless of whether the nature of the claim for refund against the defendant is seen as a party suit under the Administrative Litigation Act or as a civil suit, the defendant is not recognized as a party's ability or defendant's standing to claim this part of the claim, and since the party's ability and defendant's standing to claim the refund of this case constitute the litigation requirement, so long as such defect exists, the part of the claim for refund payment of this case is unlawful

On the other hand, for the above reasons, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the refund money premised on the invalidity of the first disposition of this case against the defendant in Daegu District Court 2007Guhap3512, and then filed a lawsuit against the defendant who is not the subject of rights and obligations, and the plaintiff filed an appeal against the defendant in the Daegu High Court 2008Nu1420. The above appellate court also rejected the part of the claim for the payment of refund money (which is dismissed in the Daegu High Court 2008Guhap1420, since the defendant, not the State, is not liable for the return of tax, and this constitutes a ground for rejection of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, as long as only the plaintiff appealed, this constitutes a ground for rejection, and there is no difference between the appellate court and the appellate court's rejection of the judgment). This part of the lawsuit is unlawful since the res judicata effect of the final judgment affects the parties and the subject of the lawsuit in this case."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.