2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On November 7, 2001, the Plaintiff, who was employed in B (hereinafter “B”) as an inorganic contractual employee, was converted to a regular employee (L0 class) pursuant to the “Agreement on the Improvement of Personnel System of Office Employees between the Trade Union and the Bank” on January 1, 201, while working in B (hereinafter “B”), and thereafter retired from B.

B. B paid a statutory retirement allowance and special retirement allowance to the Plaintiff, and applying the continuous service period calculated on the basis of the date of conversion into regular employment, not all the above retirement allowances, to the Plaintiff, withheld 28,003,730 won in total as retirement income for the year 2017.

C. On November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of the tax base and the amount of tax to the Defendant for the reduction of the retirement income tax accrued in 2017 to KRW 8,027,886 and the excess collected KRW 19,975,844, on the ground that the base date of the service year applicable in calculating the retirement income tax on the special retirement allowances ought to be the first membership date, not the date of regular conversion.

(hereinafter “instant request for correction”) D.

On November 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant claim for correction against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On February 25, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. If an administrative disposition is revoked as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, such disposition is null and void, 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 Decisions 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006; 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs B and B, according to the overall purport of Articles 1 and 2, the Defendant raised objection ex officio by the Plaintiff on December 26, 2019.