AAAA external3

o Head of the Oral Tax Office 4

The second instance decision

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu518, 2015Nu525 (Consolidated) Decided August 20, 2015

Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between Plaintiff AA and Defendant 00 Tax Office is borne by Defendant BB, between Plaintiff BB and Defendant 00 Tax Office by Plaintiff CCC, between Plaintiff CCC and Defendant 00 Tax Office by Plaintiff CCC, between Plaintiff AA, BB, and Defendant 00 Tax Office, and between Plaintiff DD and Defendant 00 Tax Office by Plaintiff DD, and between Plaintiff DD and Defendant 00 Tax Office, respectively.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

According to the records, on October 8, 2015 and October 15, 2015, which was after Defendant 00 director of the tax office and 00 director of the tax office filed the final appeal of this case, the judgment of the court below on October 8, 2015, and on October 15, 2015, on which the disposition of imposition on the part against the said Defendants was revoked ex officio. As such, on the part of the lawsuit of this case, the aforementioned cancellation was about a disposition which had no effect

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs BB and CCC

A. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that: (a) Plaintiff BB, CCC, etc. participated in the instant wing project by forming a means of human resources; and (b)***** billion won, which deducted the expenditure from the payment received as compensation or settlement money, is business income under the Income Tax Act; (c) on the ground that the said compensation or settlement money cannot be deemed as having been under the condition of suspending the extension of the number of houses installed in a charnel house or having received the conditions of rescission that it would not be impossible to do so; and (d) accordingly, the said Plaintiffs’ assertion that income has not yet been determined.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on income subject to taxation and necessary expenses

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

This part of the ground of appeal is asserted only in the final appeal, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the period of attribution of income.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 00 and the director of the tax office shall be reversed. Since the Supreme Court is sufficient to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part shall be revoked and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed. All appeals by the plaintiff 2B and the director of the tax office shall be dismissed. Of the total litigation costs, the part between the plaintiff 2B and the director of the tax office shall be between the defendant 00 and the director of the tax office; the part between the plaintiff 2B and the director of the tax office shall be between the plaintiff 00 and the director of the tax office; the part between the plaintiff 3B and the director of the tax office shall be between the plaintiff 0 and the director of the tax office; the part between the plaintiff 2B and the director of the tax office shall be between the plaintiff 0 and the director of the tax office; the part between the plaintiff 0 and the defendant 00 shall be borne by the plaintiff D and the remaining part by the defendant 00. It is so decided as per