법인세등부과처분취소
1. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant issued each notice of change in the amount of income listed in the [Attachment 1, 3, 4, and 5] attached to the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this part is as stated in the reasoning, in addition to the parts added or modified below, the reason for the judgment is as follows. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited. The following is added under the 3rd Table of the 10th instance judgment. The Defendant revoked ex officio the part against the Defendant of the first instance judgment on March 8, 2019, which was pending in the appellate trial of this case, against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015, namely, the part against the Defendant of the 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the 2,403, 151, and 28 won in the 2, 2016 attached Table No. 2 issued against the Plaintiff on August 26, 2016.
(hereinafter “Ex Officio revoked portion”). Pursuant to the 10th sentence of the first instance judgment (based on recognition), the amendment shall be made as follows:
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13 (including Serial numbers if any) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16, 18 through 34, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. If an administrative disposition is revoked on the part of the lawsuit in this case which was revoked ex officio and on the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal, such disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a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 Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided December 13, 2012, etc.). The Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance on March 8, 2019, which was pending in the instant lawsuit, by virtue of the foregoing, of the fact that the Defendant revoked ex officio the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance on March 8, 2019. As such, the claim for revocation of the revoked ex officio among the instant
In addition, the defendant's appeal is unlawful as it is against the disposition excluded from the object of adjudication due to ex officio revocation as there is no interest in appeal.
3. Each disposition of this case is legitimate.