Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan4972 (2014.09)

The filing of a lawsuit against the defendant, which is an administrative agency, with the lapse of the filing period, is also unlawful.

The plaintiff, after receiving a decision on the request for review in 1999, filed a lawsuit with the lapse of the above period for filing the lawsuit, and the lawsuit of the party shall be the defendant with the State, public organizations, and other legal entities who are the parties to the legal relations. This part of the lawsuit filed against the defendant, which is only the

2014Nu58336. Action to confirm the legality of the taxation administrative disposition

KimA

o Head of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan4972 decided July 9, 2014

September 23, 2014

October 14, 2014

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 revoked the judgment, and the decision that the defendant revoked the plaintiff on March 4, 199, the capital gains tax OOOO which the defendant imposed duplicate taxation on the plaintiff on March 4, 199, and that the defendant refunded OOOOO which the defendant illegally collected to the plaintiff (the plaintiff did not clearly appeal the part on which the plaintiff sought the revocation of the above taxation disposition, but it seems to have appealed the part on which the plaintiff seeks the revocation of the above taxation disposition in light of

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it can be accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed in entirety, and the judgment of the court of first instance consistent with this conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition ( even if the lawsuit of this case is lawful, since the contents of legal judgment contained in the order of final and conclusive judgment are new criteria for regulating the relationship between the parties to the lawsuit, the parties cannot make any arguments that conflict with this, and the court cannot make any decision that conflict with this (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86MeuOOO, Jun. 9, 1987). Since the plaintiff has lost all the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the same taxation or the lawsuit seeking the return of the paid tax amount, it is not acceptable to accept the plaintiff's claim different from the above final and conclusive judgment).