종합소득세등부과처분취소
The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant Gangnam-gu director of the tax office shall be revoked.
As to the plaintiff's defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office.
1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is stated by the court are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 9 to 14 pages of the second to 3). Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviations used in this context is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). The third, fifth and sixth "(including additional taxes)" shall be deleted.
After the third half of the imposition of the global income tax in this case against the Plaintiff, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office added “(E)” to the following: “The head of Gangnam District Tax Office rendered a decision of correction on July 26, 2017 to revoke ex officio each of the imposition of the global income tax in this case on the Plaintiff.”
2. If an administrative disposition is revoked regarding a claim to revoke the imposition of additional tax among the dispositions imposing global income tax of this case, such disposition becomes 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.
(2) On July 26, 2017, the lower court determined the ex officio revocation of each of the instant global income tax imposed upon the Plaintiff on December 13, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). As seen earlier, the lower court’s determination of the ex officio revocation of each of the instant global income tax imposed upon the Plaintiff was unlawful, on the following grounds: (a) on July 26, 2017: (b) KRW 2,960,478; (c) KRW 9,181,624; and (d) KRW 1,28,897; and (d) KRW 1,288,897; and (e) accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the ex officio revocation of the instant lawsuit, as
3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the remainder of each taxation disposition of this case
A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additions to the 6th sentence subsequent to the judgment of the court of first instance.