법인세 부과처분을 취소한 사실이 인정되므로 이 사건 소는 소의 이익이 없어 부적법 함[각하]
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap13979 ( October 14, 2013)
Since the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax is recognized, the lawsuit of this case is illegal as it has no interest in the lawsuit.
In 2010, "the part demanding the revocation of the corporate tax portion in 2010" is subject to a non-existent administrative disposition or merely disputing the validity of past legal relations, and thus, it is illegal as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit.
2015Nu891. Revocation of tax investigation decision and administrative disposition
AAA, Inc.
00 Regional Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap13979 decided June 14, 2013
Judgment prior to remand
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu20921 Decided August 20, 2014
Supreme Court Decision 2014Du12062 Decided February 26, 2015
April 21, 2015
May 7, 2015
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the judgment against the Defendant regarding "the portion of corporate tax for 2010" in the disposition of tax investigation rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2012 shall be revoked, and the part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. On March 21, 2012, the part against the Defendant regarding the corporate tax amount for the year 2010 among the disposition of tax investigation rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked, and that part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed.
1. Purport of claim
On March 21, 2012, the decision that the decision of tax investigation rendered by the defendant against the plaintiff on March 21, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") is revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
In the judgment of the first instance court, "the part ordering the revocation of the corporate tax in 2010 among the dispositions of this case" shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
In the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rendered by the Defendant on March 21, 2012, the first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal regarding “the part seeking revocation of the corporate tax portion during the instant disposition,” and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on “the part seeking revocation of the part seeking revocation of the corporate tax portion (value added tax, etc.).” Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on “the part seeking revocation of the corporate tax portion during the instant disposition (the part losing the Defendant).” The Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal regarding “the part seeking revocation of the part seeking revocation of the value-added tax (the part against the Plaintiff) during the instant disposition,” and the first instance court accepted the Defendant’s appeal regarding “the part seeking revocation of the corporate tax portion in 2010 during the instant disposition,” and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, only the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal regarding “the part seeking revocation of the part seeking revocation of the corporate tax portion in 2009 and remanded to the lower court for revocation of the said part.”
Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim before remanding the case, excluding the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the corporate tax for the year 2010 among the disposition of this case, is determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of claim seeking the revocation of the corporate tax for the year 2010 of the disposition
2. Details of the disposition;
This part of the reasoning is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed because there is no benefit in the lawsuit of this case. The defendant's revocation ex officio of the disposition of this case and the disposition of corporate tax of 2010 business year against the plaintiff on April 9, 2015 according to the purport of the judgment of remanding the case does not conflict between the parties. As a result, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is subject to non-existent administrative disposition or dispute over the validity of past legal relations, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, among the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, "the part for which the revocation of the corporate tax for 2010 year is sought from the disposition of this case among the disposition of this case is unlawful and dismissed. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair from a different conclusion, part of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be revoked. However, considering that the defendant's revocation by authority is in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remand as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, "the part for which the revocation of the corporate tax for 2010 year from the disposition of this case is sought from the defendant, the total cost of the lawsuit for