Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap2301 (Law No. 1367, 27 June 2013)

No claim can be filed for return of unjust enrichment after the revocation of disposition imposing income tax becomes final and conclusive.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court, even though a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the income tax imposition disposition was filed, it is not allowed to seek the return of the income tax already paid in unjust enrichment on the premise that the disposition of imposing the income tax becomes null and void, after

2013Na2014192 Return of Unjust Enrichment

IsaA

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap2301 Decided June 27, 2013

October 30, 2013

November 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the day following the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court's reasoning in this case is that the second 7th 'OO' of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as 'OOO', and the fourth 'the first 'O' of the judgment of the court of first instance' is the defendant in the lawsuit for revocation, so that the defendant in the lawsuit for revocation against the administrative agency is the disposition agency, the res judicata effect in the lawsuit for revocation is added to the state or public organization to which the disposition in question belongs, and the fifth 10th 3 of the judgment of the court of first 'the fifth '10th '3' added the judgment below to the first 'OO' of the judgment of the court of first 'the second 'O' and this

Doctrine Judgment

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the administrative litigation procedure and the civil litigation procedure are clearly different because it adopts the principle of ex officio deliberation (Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and that even though Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act applies mutatis mutandis to matters that are not specifically provided for in the Administrative Litigation Act, the provisions on res judicata of the Civil Procedure Act concerning res judicata of the administrative litigation cannot be applied as it is to the administrative litigation. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the res judicata of the lawsuit in

However, even if Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the ex officio psychological principle shall be applied to the administrative litigation, it is only a provision of exceptions to the principle of party, the principle of pleading and the principle of pleading, which is relevant to the special nature of the administrative litigation, and also a basic framework of the principle of party, the principle of pleading and pleading is still maintained in the administrative litigation. Once a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the same matters in the judgment in the subsequent suit cannot be asserted against the judgment, and the court can not make any decision inconsistent with this of the judgment, and it does not have to change the extent or extent depending on whether the lawsuit was ex officio psychological procedure or whether the procedure of pleading was procedure of pleading

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.