logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지법 1986. 8. 22. 선고 84가합16 제2민사부판결 : 확정
[납세의무존재확인청구사건][하집1986(3),342]
Main Issues

(a) The competent court of party litigation concerning legal relations under public law;

(b) Profits from lawsuits to confirm the existence of tax liability for the revocation of tax disposition and the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Summary of Judgment

(a) Party litigation relating to legal relations under public law shall have exclusive jurisdiction as the first instance court by the high court.

B. The effect of the interruption of extinctive prescription by a notice of tax payment following the disposition of imposing national taxes shall not disappear even if the disposition of imposition was revoked. As such, the imposing authority of national taxes has no interest in filing a lawsuit to confirm the existence of a tax liability for the purpose of

[Reference Provisions]

Article 168 of the Civil Act, Articles 1 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Law No. 1339), Articles 27 and 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No.782, Jul. 8, 1986)

Plaintiff

Korea

Defendant

Kang Dongdong coal Mining Corporation

Text

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff has the liability to pay corporate tax of KRW 38,96,501 for the business year of 1977, the defense tax of KRW 6,378,103, and corporate tax of KRW 47,589,966 for the business year of 1978, and the defense tax of KRW 8,592,967 for the business year of 1978.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

Reasons

The plaintiff's assertion. The defendant asserted that the disposition of imposition of KRW 101,57,537 in the business year 1977 and the business year 1978 and the defense tax imposed by the plaintiff against the defendant on October 31, 1979 was illegal, and the defendant's claim was dismissed by the defendant (the plaintiff in the same lawsuit) with the Seoul High Court 80Gu660 delivered on January 31, 1983 as a result of the plaintiff's action for cancellation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and defense tax, but the defendant's appeal was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court 83Nu118 delivered on June 28, 1983, and the defendant's claim was accepted by the Seoul High Court 83Nu658 delivered on July 19, 1984, which is currently pending in the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeal and the above disposition of imposition of corporate tax and defense tax should be revoked again from the Supreme Court. The defendant's claim that the above disposition of imposition of tax should be revoked for this case.

On the other hand, the lawsuit in this case is one of the parties' legal relations under public law, seeking confirmation of tax liability specifically determined by the plaintiff's disposition. Since Article 40 of the former Administrative Litigation Act, which was in force on February 28, 1984, clearly stated that the lawsuit in this case was filed, has no express provision as to the competent court of the party's lawsuit under public law, but the latter part of Article 1 of the former Administrative Litigation Act provides that litigation procedures concerning legal relations under public law shall be governed by this Act. Article 4 (1) of the same Act provides that the appellate court shall have exclusive jurisdiction as the first instance court in the case of appeal on cancellation or change of the disposition against the illegality of the administrative agency, etc. The party's lawsuit is also a lawsuit concerning legal relations under public law, as well as the revised Administrative Litigation Act (Act No. 3754, Dec. 15, 1984). Thus, the appellate court has no exclusive jurisdiction over the defendant's exercise of the right of extinctive prescription, which is the first instance court's exclusive jurisdiction over the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is a single appearance or an improper lawsuit which cannot correct its defects, it shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judge Full-time (Presiding Judge)

arrow