취득세 부과처분 취소청구 등
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government.
1. This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of deletion or addition as follows, is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3, 12 to 5, 18). Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
5. The part from the head of Gangnam-gu to the 11 to 13th (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Gangnam-gu") shall be deleted.
5 The following shall be added to the last 15th "........"
On September 11, 2015, which was after the issuance of the judgment of the first instance court of this case, the head of Gangnam-gu and the head of Seocho-gu Office supplemented procedural defects of the additional tax pointed out by the first instance court on September 11, 2015, and [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 4] attached to the imposition details of the additional tax, clearly stating the type of the additional tax and the grounds for calculation thereof (hereinafter the aforementioned Defendants’ imposition disposition of each acquisition tax as of September 29, 2014 and each imposition disposition of additional tax as of September 11, 2015 (hereinafter “each imposition disposition of this case”), and accordingly, the Plaintiff modified the claim of this court as above.
2. We examine ex officio the legality of each disposition of this case.
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 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the head of Gangnam-gu may recognize the fact that the head of Seocho-gu has revoked ex officio the entire disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff on the first instance court and during the proceedings in this Court, and the head of Seocho-gu may recognize the fact that he/she has revoked ex officio the entire disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff on
Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is to seek the cancellation of a disposition which has not been extinguished and thus becomes illegal as there is no benefit of the lawsuit.
3. Whether each of the dispositions rejecting correction of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion;
(b) relation.