Supreme Court-2016-Du-57472 (Law No. 13, 2017)

Cho-2015-Divisions-792 (Law No. 14, 2015)

The scope of the judgment on remand shall be limited to the claim for revocation of the reversed and remanded disposition.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part of the disposition of taxation and the request for revocation of the recommendation of revised return. After remand, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. After the remand, the case subject to adjudication is limited to the request for revocation of the disposition

Tax exemption under Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Revocation of the disposition, etc. of imposition of value-added tax on Gwangju High Court ( Jeju) 2017Nu1409

Plaintiff, the deceased and the deceased

Maddi

AA Head of the Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du57472 Decided April 13, 2017

September 6, 2017

1. The part concerning the imposition of value-added tax for the first and second period in the judgment of the court of first instance in 2012 shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be dismissed;

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. On December 8, 2014, the defendant revoked the first instance court's decision on the imposition of value-added tax 1,572, xx members, 2012 value-added tax 3, 695, xx members (hereinafter referred to as "the instant imposition disposition"), and 1, 2011, 1 and 2, 2013, and 1, 2014, 2014, respectively.

1. Scope of trial of the political party after remand;

On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition and the recommendation for the revised return. However, the court of first instance rejected the instant request for revocation of the recommendation for the revised return on April 20, 2016, and rendered a judgment dismissing the request for revocation of the instant disposition. The Plaintiff appealed against the said judgment, but the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 19, 2016. The Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on October 19, 2016. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part regarding the instant disposition for imposition on April 13, 2017, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the claim for revocation of the recommendation for the revised return.

Therefore, since the appeal of the Supreme Court became final and conclusive by the judgment of the Supreme Court, the appeal of the case is limited to the claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case which was destroyed and remanded after the remand.

2. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

Since the defendant revoked all the disposition of this case after the pronouncement of the judgment of remand, the defendant asserts that the claim for revocation of the disposition of this case is unlawful.

According to the statement No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 3-2, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of this case ex officio pursuant to the purport of the judgment remanded after the judgment of remand was rendered. Thus, the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit for revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part concerning the disposition of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided