Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-7219 (07 June 2018)

Cho High-2018-Seoul Government-1811 (20 June 2018)

The subject matter of the previous lawsuit and the subject matter of the claim seeking revocation of the second disposition of this case are the same.

(1) The plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the second disposition of this case is identical to that of the previous lawsuit. The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the second disposition of this case is identical to that of the previous lawsuit of this case. The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the second disposition of this case is in conflict with the res judicata of the final judgment.

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

Seoul High Court-2018-Nu-53827 ( May 8, 2019)

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-7219 ( June 7, 2018)

April 17, 2019

May 8, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on April 30, 2015 against the plaintiff in 2009 and the rejection disposition against the plaintiff on May 6, 2015 against the plaintiff in 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following Paragraph 2 to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The addition;

The following is added to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court No. 10, 5, following the following. (C) With respect to the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000 upon consultation fromCC for the transfer of the instant shares; and (b) DD paid KRW 2 billion for advisory fees, etc. for the contract; and (c) DD paid the necessary expenses for the transfer of each of the instant shares by paying KRW 2 billion for consultation fees, etc., there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge each of the entries in the evidence No. 3 and No. 12, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion concerning the second disposition of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.