경정청구기각처분취소
1. The part of the lawsuit of this case, which exceeds 7,680,030 won of retirement income tax, shall be subject to the rejection of correction.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 2, 199, the Plaintiff joined the company B as a fixed-term employee and was converted into “C regular employee” on January 1, 2014, and retired desiredly on January 2, 2017.
B. B Bank withheld the Plaintiff’s retirement income tax from the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, withheld the number of years of service calculated on the basis of the conversion date of general service, not the date of employment, and withheld the amount of 27,145,840 won. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of retirement income tax to the effect that the number of years of service, which serves as the basis for calculating income tax, should be the first admission date.
Accordingly, on November 26, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction.
C. On February 25, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on July 15, 2019, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was issued, and on September 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.
However, on November 15, 2019 where the instant lawsuit is pending, the Defendant re-determined the retirement income tax to 7,680,030 won by deducting the retirement income tax already paid from the total retirement income tax, on the ground that the retirement income tax received by the Plaintiff at the time of retirement on December 31, 2013 falls under the interim settlement of retirement income, on the ground that the retirement income tax received by the Plaintiff at the time of retirement on December 31, 2013.
(A) A refund of KRW 16,98,010 was made). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. If an administrative disposition is revoked with respect to part of the instant disposition, which was partially corrected ex officio, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition does not have a benefit of lawsuit.
The plaintiff is unlawful because there is no interest in dispute as to the part already refunded due to ex officio correction.