Whether res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment dismissed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition affects the litigation seeking nullification of the taxation disposition (affirmative)

The taxation disposition is a procedure to determine specifically the tax claim that has already been established objectively and abstractly upon the fulfillment of the taxation requirements in question. The lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition is the substantive and procedural illegality of the taxation disposition, and the object of the deliberation is the object of the deliberation. The legality of the tax base and tax amount, which is the tax obligation recognized by the taxation authority, is the object of deliberation. The final judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the taxation disposition, has res judicata effect as to the legitimacy of the taxation disposition, and the plaintiff cannot bring a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the final and conclusive judgment that is dismissed, and thus the plaintiff cannot bring a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the taxation disposition.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8 and 30 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu491 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 102) Supreme Court Decision 86Nu491 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 102) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6891 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 469) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu977 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1609)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Shin Chang-dong et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

z. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu22359 delivered on December 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "tax disposition" means a procedure for determining specifically the tax claim that has already been established objectively and abstractly upon meeting the taxation requirements in question. The lawsuit seeking revocation of the tax disposition is the substantive and procedural illegality of the above taxation disposition. The object of the review is the taxation disposition's propriety of the tax base and tax amount which is the tax obligation recognized by the taxation disposition, i.e., the propriety of the pertinent taxation disposition. The final judgment dismissing the claim for revocation of the tax disposition has res judicata effect as to the legitimacy of the disposition, and the plaintiff cannot bring a lawsuit seeking nullification of the final judgment, and thus, the res judicata effect of the final judgment dismissed in the lawsuit seeking nullification of the said taxation disposition also extends to the lawsuit seeking nullification of the said tax disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu491, Nov. 10, 1987; 92Nu6891, Dec. 8, 1992; 9Nu2797, Apr. 27, 1993).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the revocation of the disposition imposing interest income tax on the Seoul High Court 84GuGu395, and filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court on August 14, 1986, but the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 28, 1987, upon which the dismissal of the appeal was rendered on April 28, 1987. The plaintiff asserted the invalidity of the above previous judgment on the ground of the procedural illegality and mistake in withholding agent, and the res judicata effect of the above previous judgment is also effective in the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata effect. The determination of legal principles as to the substance over form and the underlying taxation on the disposition in this case raised by the plaintiff is without merit as long as the lawsuit in this case is contrary to the res judicata effect.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below cannot find any material that can recognize that a branch of Commercial Bank Beneficiary Beneficiary has withheld the creditor's interest income tax and paid it to the defendant, and it can be seen that the plaintiff is a withholding agent of interest income on the ground that the plaintiff has made an investment in the bonds of this case as an individual qualification. Thus, the court below's argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the omission of judgment

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)