beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Incheon District Court 201Recogni11 (2012.05.03)
Case Number of the previous trial
Early High Court Decision 2007J0455 (Law No. 24, 2007)
Title
Inasmuch as it cannot be deemed as the basis for the judgment subject to review, it cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial
Summary
(See the judgment of the first instance court) In an administrative litigation, a request for retrial can be filed only when there are grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis under the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the basis for the judgment subject to retrial, and it cannot be the grounds for retrial under the law.
Cases
2012Nu15175 Global income and revocation of disposition
Plaintiff (Re-Appellant) and appellant
AA
Defendant (Re-Defendant), appellees
The director of the Southern Incheon District Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Incheon District Court Decision 201Juhap11 Decided May 3, 2012
Conclusion of Pleadings
October 31, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
November 21, 2012
Text
1. The appeal filed by the plaintiff (Plaintiff) is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).
Effect of claim, purport of request for review and appeal
The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The decision subject to a retrial shall be revoked. On December 1, 2006, the part on global income tax of 000 won imposed by the defendant (the defendant) against the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter "the plaintiff") for the year 2003 shall be revoked.
Reasons
The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited in the judgment subject to a retrial. The Plaintiff also asserts that there exists any ground for retrial as stipulated in Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment (the same applies to the judgment of the first instance court) in the case where the Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax against the head of Goyangyang Tax Office (the same applies to the judgment of the first instance court) cannot be deemed as materials for fact-finding in the judgment subject to a retrial, which is the case subject to the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax. Accordingly