Nor is permitted because it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous case

Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, filing a subsequent suit between the same parties on the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the parties is not permissible as it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit

Daejeon District Court 2016Guhap959

00

00. Head of tax office

2016.03.22

2017.04.05

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant seeks to revoke the disposition imposing additional gift tax on December 1, 201 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of additional gift tax on the Plaintiff on December 1, 201, 2014, shall be revoked on December 1, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Imposition of gift tax and additional tax on the plaintiff

(1) On October 18, 2005, the Plaintiff’s father NewBK received KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant compensation”) from 00 from 00 on a land compensation in the area of 00,000, and 00 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s father”). (2) The Director of the Regional Tax Office of 00 (hereinafter “the instant compensation”) conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from March 30, 2007 to May 10, 2007, and confirmed that the newBK donated KRW 00 to the Plaintiff in cash among the instant compensation. Accordingly, on May 2007, the Defendant determined and notified that the Plaintiff donated KRW 00 to 00 from 200,000 to 200, and the Plaintiff paid the said gift tax in full around that time.

3) On May 201, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff opened a borrowed account under the name of newBK and directly managed the deposited and withdrawn money in the process of investigating the grounds for delinquency in capital gains tax for the year 2005 of newBK, and conducted a tax investigation again with the Plaintiff from September 14, 201 to October 21, 201.

4) As a result, the Defendant deposited the instant compensation in the account of the Daejeon Central Branch in the name of NewBK, confirmed the fact that the sum of KRW 000,00, which is the Plaintiff’s principal bank account, was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account, and on December 1, 2011, deemed that the Plaintiff additionally donated KRW 000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 000,000, which had already been imposed gift tax, among KRW 000, which was received directly or through EDY, was additionally donated by the Plaintiff, and corrected and corrected the gift tax to KRW 00,00,000, excluding the already paid KRW 00,00,000, and then corrected and notified the remainder of KRW 00 (0,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000).

B. The plaintiff's objection and the defendant's second disposition

1) On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal against the disposition on December 1, 2011, but the Director of the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 1, 2013.

2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the District Court on January 2, 2014 seeking revocation of the disposition as of December 1, 2011, but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 13, 2014 (00 district court2014Gu 00000).

3) On December 1, 2014, when the appellate trial was pending, the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court. On the grounds that the Defendant did not specify the basis for calculation of additional tax in the notice of the first disposition of this case, the Defendant issued ex officio a disposition imposing additional tax of KRW 000 (00 additional tax of gift tax + additional tax of gift tax of KRW 000) on gift tax in 2006, stating the basis for calculation of additional tax (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

4) Accordingly, during the appellate trial’s continuation, the Plaintiff exchangedly changed the purport of the claim to seek revocation of the imposition of a principal tax of KRW 000 and an additional tax of KRW 000,000, among the dispositions on December 1, 2011.

5) On February 5, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims that were changed in exchange with the Plaintiff’s appeal (Supreme Court Decision 00 High Court Decision 2014Nu0000), and the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 11, 2015 (Court Decision 2015Du000, hereinafter “instant previous lawsuit”).

[Ground of recognition] The items in Gap evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. As to the first disposition of this case

A person who withdraws a lawsuit subsequent to the final judgment on the merits does not have the same lawsuit (Article 267(2) of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 267(2)); on the other hand, in a case where an exchange change of a lawsuit subject to the withdrawal of the previous claim and the effect of the filing of a new claim occurred in the appellate trial, the lawsuit against the previous claim is withdrawn after the final judgment on the merits was rendered. In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition on December 1, 201, including the first disposition in this case, but was sentenced to the dismissal decision in the first instance court of the previous lawsuit in this case. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition in this case, but the plaintiff did not dispute as to the revocation of the previous disposition in this case's previous appellate court's previous disposition in this case's previous disposition in this case's previous disposition in this case's second disposition in exchange with seeking revocation of the imposition of additional tax amounting to KRW 000,000 among the second disposition in this case's previous disposition in this case.

B. As to the second disposition of this case

Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects a judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged in the subject matter of a lawsuit, filing a subsequent suit against the same subject matter of a lawsuit between the same parties is not permissible as it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981 Decided March 27, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the claim pertaining to the same subject matter of a lawsuit that pertains to seeking revocation of the previous lawsuit and the instant lawsuit in both the instant case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s health class in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, and the Plaintiff’s seeking revocation of the instant second disposition constitutes seeking revocation again against the Defendant with respect to the part which was lost in the final and conclusive judgment of the previous lawsuit, and thus, this part of the claim is not allowed as it contradicts res judicata of the final

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the first disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.