the filing of a duplicate action;

Although the same subject-matter of lawsuit has been filed with the parties differently, if the previous suit has not been filed by withdrawal or dismissal, etc. until the closing of argument in the subsequent suit, the subsequent suit is illegal as it constitutes a overlapping lawsuit.

2015Guhap65070 Revocation of Disposition rejecting Value-Added Tax Correction

○ Card Corporation

○ Head of tax office

May 4, 2018

June 29, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on September 16, 201 against the plaintiff is revoked in entirety as to each claim for correction against the value-added tax of 230,495,860 won and the value-added tax of 2,200,290 won in 2011.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant legal principles

In a case where the subject matter of a lawsuit is different from the parties, but the previous suit is not extinguished due to withdrawal, dismissal, etc. by the time the closing of argument in the subsequent suit, the subsequent suit shall be deemed unlawful as it constitutes an overlapping lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23066, Nov. 14, 2017). In such a case, the criteria for identifying the previous suit and the subsequent suit shall be followed after the date when the lawsuit is in progress. In a case where there is an additional change in the lawsuit, the validity of the continuation of the lawsuit added shall come into force when the document is served on the other party or is delivered at the date of pleading (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da41187, May 22, 1992).

B. Facts of recognition

1) On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for revocation of the disposition of increase in value-added tax of KRW 554,296,890 for the first time, which was issued against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2013, and for revocation of the disposition of increase in value-added tax of KRW 597,035,00 for the second time, KRW 201 for the second time, which was issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the preceding lawsuit of this case”).

2) On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the reduction of the value-added tax of KRW 230,495,860 for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 230,495,860 and value-added tax of KRW 242,20,290 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 201, which was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, but the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting all of the claims for the reduction of the above amount on September 16, 2014.

3) On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant refusal disposition with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on March 9, 2015.

4) On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for modification of the purport of the claim with the purport of adding the claim for revocation of the instant refusal disposition to the previous suit, and the duplicate was served on the Defendant on June 8, 2015.

5) On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant refusal disposition, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on June 18, 2015.

6) On January 19, 2018, the judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant was rendered in the previous suit of this case, and the appellate court of the previous suit of this case (Seoul High Court 2018Nu38545) is continuing as of the date of closing argument of this case after appeal by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

According to the above facts, the previous suit in this case and the lawsuit in this case are identical to the parties, and the continuation of the lawsuit in this case occurred later than the previous suit in this case, and the previous suit in this case is deemed not to have been extinguished due to withdrawal and rejection as of the date of closing of argument in this case. Thus, the previous suit in this case constitutes a overlapping lawsuit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.