Seoul Administrative Court 2012 Gohap14 (2012.05.04)

It is not permissible due to abuse of the right of action against the principle of good faith, which is filed as the cause of the rejection several times.

A lawsuit seeking cancellation or invalidation for the same reason has been filed several times, and a lawsuit of this case has been dismissed or dismissed by the court, despite being pronounced dismissed or dismissed by the court, and there is no evidence to prove the special circumstances that the plaintiff should be protected by the right, and thus, it cannot be allowed as abuse of the right against the principle of good faith, unless there is any evidence to prove that the plaintiff should be protected by the right.

2014Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing global income tax, etc.

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Jhap14 decided May 4, 2012

April 25, 2014

June 13, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

Cheong-gu Office

"The Seoul Administrative Court's 2012. 5. 5. 4, 2012. Revocation of the 2012. 5. 4. , and the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") against the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") on March 16, 1996 confirms that the imposition of the global income tax OOOOO and OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO which belongs to the plaintiff

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

(1) The defendant newly constructed five-story units on the 190-190-190-2 OB 301-7 site, and sold them to BB 67 out of the above site, (2) newly constructed six-household units on the 246-34 site and sold them to 4 households, and (3) newly constructed two-story units on the 246-4 site, and (4) newly built three-story units and six-story units on the 97-19-2 site, the owner of the above 97-199-2 site, which was subject to the Seoul High Court Decision 97. The plaintiff's decision was issued on the 197-19-19-2 Seoul High Court's decision on the 197-19-19-2 global income tax on the 197-4 site, and the plaintiff was subject to the 196-19-O's decision on the tax base for global income tax on the 199-196-O unit.

(4) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case as of January 23, 1999, Seoul High Court Decision 99Gu2580 delivered on April 222, 1999, 200 Seoul High Court Decision 200Nu4199 delivered on August 11, 199, 200, 200Da4199 delivered on August 23, 200, 200 2. The plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that "The above disposition of this case was dismissed on August 29, 200, 200Da4199 delivered on August 19, 200, 200Da41999 delivered on August 19, 200, 200Da41999 delivered on June 23, 199, but the plaintiff was thus dismissed on August 29, 199."

F. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition and Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu4199 on February 16, 2002 by 202, 202, 202, 302, 201, but was sentenced to dismissal on April 18, 2002 by Seoul High Court Decision 201, 201, 30, 201, 201, 30, 201, 20, 201, 20, 30, 201, 20, 201, 30, 20, 201, 20, 30, 201, 20, 30, 201, 20, 30, 30, 201, 20, 30, 20, 30, 201, 20, 201, 30, 201, 2014.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Although the right to trial belongs to the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the exercise of the right to trial shall also be deemed to be regulated by the principle of trust and good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial function. Therefore, it would result in bullying of the other party, and further filing of a lawsuit with the same content for obvious reasons that it cannot be accepted by law because it has been rejected in spite of the fact that the lawsuit was filed but has been lost over several times and the judgment has become final and conclusive. Furthermore, such lawsuit may not be allowed as a result of the use of the right to trial in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da275, May 28, 1999).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation or invalidation of the instant disposition for the same reason as the instant case and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on several occasions, and even if the court was dismissed or sentenced to dismissal, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the judgment subject to review and the confirmation and revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of the reasons for rejection as the cause of claim, and there is no evidence to acknowledge any special circumstance to acknowledge that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to protection of the right. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is not permissible as it abuse of the right against the principle of good faith.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.