Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch 2014Guhap220 ( December 09, 2014)

The lawsuit of this case is not appropriate because it was brought without due process of the preceding trial.

(As the judgment of the first instance is the same as the judgment of the first instance) since the lawsuit of this case was immediately brought without any request for examination or adjudgment, it is inappropriate to have been brought without due process of the first instance trial.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning other Acts

2014Nu1401 Value Added tax base and output tax objection filing;

LAA

○ Head of tax office

Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch 2014Guhap220 ( October 14, 2015)

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

2015.014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of correction and notification of value-added tax of 325,280 won for the second term of 2013 against the plaintiff on May 21, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why our court should explain concerning the instant case are the same as the judgment of the first instance court. As such, this case is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (The plaintiff quoted the Supreme Court decisions in the petition of appeal, but one of the issues in the same case also cited the Supreme Court decisions, and there is no room to invoke the legal principle in this case.)

2. Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and it is evident that the defects cannot be corrected, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it has no reason.

3. Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act, to which Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act applies mutatis mutandis mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation, provides that "if the defects are not corrected as a legal action, it may be dismissed by a judgment without holding any pleadings." Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "The above provision is located in Part II (Procedure of First Instance), not in Part II (Procedure of First Instance) but in Part I (General Provisions), so it is evident that it may also apply to an appellate court in its system, and Article 413 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "If the defects are not corrected as a legal appeal, an appeal may be dismissed by a judgment without holding any pleadings," it is only a separate provision in the appellate court, taking into account the fact that it shall meet the requirements for appeal in addition to the requirements for lawsuit, in addition to the requirements for appeal (in this case, the appeal itself is legitimate, and thus, it does not fall under the above provision).

4. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed without pleading, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.