세금이 이미 납부되었다면 무효확인청구는 확인의 이익이 없어 부적법함[기타]
Gwangju High Court 86Gu131 (1987.05.07)
If the tax has been already paid, the claim to nullify the tax is illegal as there is no benefit of confirmation.
If taxes are already paid according to the disposition of imposition of taxes, there is no tax obligation according to the disposition of imposition. Therefore, the claim for nullification of the disposition of imposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
If taxes are already paid according to the disposition of imposition of taxes, there is no tax obligation according to the disposition of imposition. Therefore, the claim for nullification of the disposition of imposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 80Nu424 Delivered on January 13, 1981, and 83Nu83 Delivered on July 12, 1983
Kim Sang-deok
Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant, defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 86Gu131 decided May 7, 1987
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the attorney are examined.
1. If taxes are already paid upon the disposition of tax imposition, there is no tax obligation according to the disposition of tax imposition. Therefore, the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of tax imposition is a party member's precedent that the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of tax imposition is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation (see each judgment of 80Nu424, Jan. 13, 1981).
2. However, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim against the farmland tax of this case and the farmland tax of 39,132,40 won and the resident tax of 2,934,930 won among the disposition imposing the resident tax of this case for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity, and the above tax amount of 39,132,39 won and the resident tax of 2,934,922 won among each of the above tax amount are considered to have been already paid by the non-party Kim Jong-ok, the previous argument of the court below ( April 23, 1987).
Therefore, although the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the disposition on this portion is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation, the court below should have deliberated on the merits, which is the matter of ex officio investigation, and have accepted part of the plaintiff's claim, and ultimately, it cannot avoid criticism that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the benefit of confirmation in administrative litigation and failing to exhaust all deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.
3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)