Lee Jong-il (Attorney Lee Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Director of the Gangwon District Office

April 10, 1984

The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

The conjunctive claim of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(Purpose of the Preliminary Claim) The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 3,432,840, and the defense tax amounting to KRW 343,284 against the Plaintiff on October 6, 1983 is invalid. (Purpose of the Preliminary Claim) The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff is revoked.

The Plaintiff, on October 6, 1983, had income from the sale of approximately 20 to 65.7 of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju-si, and the Defendant rendered a tax additional disposition such as the statement in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant tax disposition”) against the Plaintiff on October 6, 1983, there is no dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff’s attorney, before the Defendant rendered the instant tax disposition, had already made a tax disposition the same as the instant tax disposition on September 7, 1982, based on the fact that the Plaintiff had already been subject to the aforementioned taxation requirements. As such, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation by lawful pre-trial procedure to challenge the illegality of the previous disposition. The Plaintiff, while the administrative litigation is pending, found that there was a defect in the procedure of the tax payment notice that was issued by the Defendant without specifying the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and on this reason, voluntarily revoked the previous disposition at the time, and thus, the previous disposition should be revoked as a claim for nullification or revocation of the previous disposition.

However, as alleged in the above, if the defendant issued the same taxation disposition as the previous taxation disposition but revoked it due to the procedural defect in the previous taxation disposition procedure, it can be issued the same taxation disposition again. Thus, the main claim for the taxation disposition is groundless on the premise that the previous taxation disposition is null and void automatically. Furthermore, with respect to the legality of the lawsuit concerning the conjunctive claim, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without going through the previous trial procedure, such as not filing a lawsuit, as well as the plaintiff's legal representative who filed the lawsuit of this case without going through the previous trial procedure, the lawsuit concerning the preliminary claim in this case is unlawful. (However, the plaintiff's legal representative has gone through the previous trial procedure concerning the taxation disposition on September 7, 1982, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for the previous taxation disposition of this case as to the previous tax disposition of this case which is identical to the previous 200,000 won without going through the previous trial procedure, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for the previous 8th trial procedure.

In this case, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed as the lawsuit on the conjunctive claim is illegal, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and it is decided as per Disposition.

may 1, 1984

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul's disease