Whether an attack or defense, which was not asserted in the previous trial procedure, may be asserted in an appeal litigation procedure (affirmative)

In an appeal litigation, the plaintiff may assert the method of offence and defense which was not asserted in the previous trial procedure in the litigation procedure, and the court may examine it and determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition.

Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu33 delivered on July 26, 1983, 84Nu211 delivered on June 12, 1984, 84Nu247 delivered on July 23, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1018 decided May 19, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below legitimately confirmed the fact that the plaintiff did not transfer the apartment of this case to the non-party on November 16, 1981, but only entrusted ownership on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out.

In addition, in an appeal litigation, the plaintiff can assert the method of attack and defense not asserted in the previous trial procedure, and the court may examine it to determine the legitimacy of administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu211 delivered on June 12, 1984). The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as pointed out. All of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)