A. Whether Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act applies to an administrative litigation on the disposition of imposing local taxes;

B. The meaning of the same kind of case under Article 18(3)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

(c) The case holding that even if the previous disposition of imposition of the property tax or aggregate land tax and the subsequent disposition of imposition are the same as the person liable for duty payment and the objects subject to taxation, the dispute over the disposition of imposition may vary depending on the various changes each year, and thus, it cannot fall under the same kind of case as provided in Article 18 (3) 1

(d) The case holding that even if the two dispositions under Paragraph (c) are imposed in common and under the previous procedure of the trial on the previous dispositions, a lawsuit seeking revocation may be brought after undergoing the procedure of the previous trial on the subsequent dispositions

A. Article 65 of the Local Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis only to the imposition and collection of local taxes. As such, Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not apply mutatis mutandis to the procedures for objection to the imposition of local taxes. Article 8(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that administrative litigation shall be governed by the same Act, except as otherwise provided in other Acts. Article 58(12) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993) provides that an administrative litigation on the imposition and collection of local taxes shall be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice of examination and decision under paragraph (5) or from the date of receipt of the notice of the review and decision of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply to administrative litigation against the imposition of local taxes.

B. Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that an administrative litigation may be instituted without going through an administrative appeal, where the result of the decision of the administrative appeal is clear and it is not possible to expect the quoted decision, the exclusive administrative decision of the administrative appeal is unreasonable. In this context, the term "a case involving the same kind of case" means not only the case in question but also the case where the basic homogeneity exists with the case in question.

(c) The case holding that since property tax or aggregate land tax has a profit-free nature that recognizes the ability to pay taxes on the property owned and is assessed independently every year during the possession of the property concerned, the previous imposition and subsequent imposition are separate dispositions, respectively, and even if the objects subject to taxation are identical with the taxpayer, the tax base is changed according to the change in the value of the objects subject to taxation each year; in particular, in the case of aggregate land tax, the taxation method (general aggregate, separate aggregate, separate taxation) is changed depending on the change in the size or value of the entire land owned by the taxpayer; and in the case of a foreign-capital invested company, the tax rate vary each year depending on the change in the size or value of the entire land owned by the taxpayer; and the tax amount varies each year depending on the time of authorization or registration of foreign investment under the Foreign Capital Inducement Act and the time of acquisition of the land, and thus the contents of the dispute over the imposition are not different.

D. The case holding that even if the two dispositions under Paragraph (c) are common in the issues, the adjudication agency in the procedure of the previous trial shall not make a decision or a ruling with the conviction or opinion formed by the previous data, but shall make a decision based on the conviction and opinion newly formed based on new data, so long as it cannot be said that the previous dispositions under the procedure of the previous trial cannot be said to have gone through the procedure of the previous trial even though they did not go through the procedure of the previous dispositions, the adjudication agency in the procedure of the previous trial may institute a lawsuit seeking revocation after going through the procedure of the previous trial

A. D. Article 58(12)(a) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611, Dec. 27, 1993); Article 65 of the Local Tax Act; Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 56(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8972 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 276) 93Nu9132 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2984)

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Jung-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu9271 delivered on February 23, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Article 58 (12) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611, Dec. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same) does not explicitly exclude the application of Article 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act even in an administrative litigation on a disposition imposing local tax, the court below determined that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it does not go through legitimate procedure of the judgment of the court below since Article 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act is excluded in fact since it is subject to the above review and decision, even though it is an administrative litigation on a disposition imposing local tax, even if there is a reason under Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act in this case, which is an administrative litigation on a disposition imposing local tax. The plaintiff received a notice of payment of the aggregate land tax of this case from the defendant on Oct. 19, 192 and raised an objection under Article 58 (1) of the Local Tax Act within the limit of the Local Tax Act.

Article 65 of the Local Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis only to the imposition and collection of local taxes. As such, Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not apply mutatis mutandis to procedures for objection to the imposition of local taxes. Article 8(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that administrative litigation shall be governed by this Act, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts. Article 58(12) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611, Dec. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that an administrative litigation against the imposition and collection of local taxes shall be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice of examination and decision under paragraph (5) of the Administrative Litigation Act or from the date of receipt of the notice of the review and decision under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply to administrative litigation against the imposition of local taxes. Thus, Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act applies to administrative litigation.

Therefore, the court below determined that the application of Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act is excluded in administrative litigation against the disposition imposing local taxes is an illegal act in misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 58 (12) of the former Local Tax Act and Articles 8 (1) and 18 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the court below, as an additional decision, applied the provisions of Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act to the administrative litigation on the imposition of local taxes, and was ruled dismissed on the basis of the interpretation of the same law and regulations, each of the previous dispositions and the disposition of this case did not fall under the same kind of case as provided in Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and did not go through a separate procedure, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since it did not go through a legitimate procedure of the previous trial even though it did not go through a separate procedure of the previous trial.

Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that an administrative litigation may be instituted without going through an administrative appeal to the "when a rejection ruling of an administrative appeal has already been made with respect to the same type of case" is because the pre-determination of an administrative appeal is unreasonable in case where the result of the administrative appeal is clear and it is not expected to be a quoted ruling. The term "same type of case" refers to not only the case in question but also the case in which the basic homogeneity with the case in question exists (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8972 delivered on November 24, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9132 delivered on September 28, 1993).

According to the records, the company is a foreign-capital invested company established for the purpose of the plaintiff tourist hotel business and its incidental business under the Foreign Capital Inducement Act. Since the foreign investment authorized on May 4, 1973, the company acquired the above tax reduction or exemption for 508,050,000 capital by obtaining authorization for the increase of the capital until November 4, 1977. Meanwhile, the company's remaining tax reduction or exemption for 12 years from the date it obtained authorization for the above foreign investment for 19 years until the date it obtained authorization for the increase of the capital for 19 years before and after 1985. 27,481.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case"), and its tax reduction or exemption for 9 years from the above 199,72.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the above tax reduction or exemption rate for 9 years from the previous land of this case"), and the company's remaining tax reduction or exemption for 9 years from the above 199,19431,2, respectively.

Since property tax or aggregate land tax has a profit-free nature that recognizes the capacity to pay taxes on the property owned by it and the liability to pay taxes arises independently every year during the possession of the property concerned, the previous imposition disposition and the previous imposition disposition of this case not only are separate dispositions, but also are different from the previous imposition disposition of this case (it differs from the previous imposition disposition of this case), the tax base vary each year depending on the change in the value of the taxable objects. In particular, in the case of aggregate land tax, the method of taxation (total sum, separate aggregate, separate taxation) vary depending on the change in the area or value of the entire land owned by the taxpayer, and in the case of the plaintiff-invested enterprise, the rate of tax reduction and exemption under the provisions of foreign law varies each year depending on the timing of foreign investment or registration, and the time of acquisition of the land, so the previous imposition disposition and the previous imposition disposition of this case are not subject to the previous imposition disposition of this case, and thus, the previous imposition disposition of this case cannot be deemed to fall under the previous imposition disposition of this case and the previous imposition disposition of this case of this case cannot be deemed to fall under the previous imposition disposition of this case.

3. Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is clearly dismissed without going through legitimate pre-trial procedure and it is obvious that it will be dismissed in an unlawful manner, the above misunderstanding of legal principles by the court below cannot be deemed an unlawful ground for reversal as it does not affect the

There is no reason to discuss.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)