재산세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's defendant Goyang-si Head of Kusan-si, the Papju market, the Papju market, the Papju market, the Papju market, the Yangyang-si market, and the Goyang-si market.
1. In a case where an administrative disposition against the Defendants, other than the Defendant Kuuri market, is revoked, such disposition is null and void, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
(8) According to the Plaintiff’s without dispute and Eul’s evidence No. 4, Eul’s evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, and Eul evidence No. 1, prior to the closing of argument in this case, the part on imposition of property tax exceeding KRW 56,148,480 on September 4, 2014; ② The part on imposition of property tax exceeding KRW 53,92,190 on the Plaintiff; ② the part on imposition of property tax exceeding KRW 18,479,000 on September 19, 2014; ② the part on imposition of property tax exceeding KRW 30,479,110; ③ the part on imposition of property tax exceeding KRW 45,00,000; and ③ the part on imposition of property tax exceeding KRW 36,50,000 on May 5, 2014; and ③ the Mayor of Jeonyang-ju was imposed ex officio exceeding KRW 946,5,30685,60.
Therefore, the plaintiff's defendant Goyang-si Head of Kusan-si, the Papju market, the Namyang-ju market, the Papju market, the Yangyang-si market, the Yangyang-si market.