1. Of judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning imposition of the principal tax shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, which was the Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap905, and the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.

In relation to this, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2013Nu760, and the above appellate court (the first instance court prior to the refund) accepted part of the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The imposition of the principal tax during the instant disposition is lawful, but the imposition of the penalty tax is unlawful without clearly stating the type of the penalty tax and the grounds for its calculation, etc.” and revoked the first instance judgment regarding the imposition of penalty tax during the instant disposition, and revoked the said imposition

After that, only the Plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8360 regarding the part against the Plaintiff in the above appellate judgment, and the above appellate court rendered a judgment reversed and remanded to the court below on the ground that “The first investigation in this case constitutes a tax investigation not on-site confirmation, but on the substance thereof. Therefore, even though the second investigation is prohibited, the court below (the court prior to the second investigation) rendered a judgment lawful the instant disposition on the ground that “the first investigation in this case constitutes an on-site confirmation, not on-site investigation, and the second investigation constitutes the first investigation.” Therefore, there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles. Accordingly, the part against the Plaintiff in the judgment below against the Plaintiff shall be reversed

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the party shall be limited to the imposition of the principal tax that was lost by the plaintiff in the previous trial prior to the transfer of the case, and it shall be limited to the imposition of the principal tax.

The main disposition of this case is legitimate, as stated in the judgment of reversal and return.