beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: (a) Nos. 5, 13, and 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the CPA.
2. The part of the disposition of notification as mentioned in the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, even if the plaintiff sought unjust enrichment against the defendant including the case where it does not reach the invalidity of the disposition as a matter of course, and the disposition of notification as provided in the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act has the character of a criminal procedure as a prior procedure, and the other party's voluntary uniform uniform takes effect, so the disposition of notification alone does not enforce the notification or form any rights and obligations against the other party, so it does not constitute a disposition subject to administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Nu40, Jan. 27, 1976; 75Nu40, May 28, 1998; 96Hun-Ba4, May 28, 1998; however, even if the person subject to the disposition of notification, such as the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, fails to comply with the pertinent disposition, and there is a separate procedure for undergoing an investigation and trial, and the plaintiff's assertion in the relevant judgment can be asserted.
The plaintiff did not use such procedures, and once he paid a fine and did not file a complaint with the director of a regional tax office, etc., and seek unjust enrichment equivalent to the fine already paid through the separate civil procedure of this case cannot be accepted in light of the purport of the relevant system.
The Defendant’s possession of a fine is due to the Plaintiff’s return to the instant disposition of notice, and the Plaintiff paid the fine. In accordance with the instant disposition of notice.