면허정지기간 동안 다른 회사 명의를 빌려 주류판매영업을 계속하였음을 인정하기 부족함[국패]
Busan District Court-2016-Guhap20488 (Law No. 29, 2016.29)
It is insufficient to recognize that the licensee has continued to operate the liquor sales business by lending the name of other company during the period of suspension of license.
(1) In light of the fact that the existence of the name lending consideration was not revealed, and the employees of the court reversed the statement in the prosecutor's investigation process, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff continued to operate the alcoholic beverage sales business by lending the name of another company during the period of suspension of license.
Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act / [Tax Invoice]
2016Nu23356 Requests for revocation of imposition, including value-added tax
A Stock Company
B The Director of the Tax Office
July 14, 2017
August 11, 2017
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s value-added tax amounting to KRW 000,000,000 for the second period of October 7, 2011 against the Plaintiff on October 7, 2014;
Value-added tax for the first year of 2012 00,000,000, and 0,000,000 for the corporate tax for the business year of 2011; and
Each disposition of KRW 0,000,000 for the business year 2012 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. Details of the disposition;
This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Article 8 (2) of the Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
If an administrative disposition is revoked ex officio, the disposition is null and void, and no longer exists. A lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendant’s July 2017.
10. The fact that each of the dispositions of this case was revoked ex officio is apparent in the record. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is seeking the revocation of a disposition that is not extinguished and became unlawful as there was no benefit of lawsuit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is revoked and dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
The defendant shall bear the burden of the defendant.