양도소득세경정거부처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.
3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 27, 2013, the Plaintiffs inherited each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the deceased’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, as one-half share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Of them, each of the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4, “instant land” and the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 5 (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiffs sold the instant real estate at KRW 700,000,000. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiffs made a preliminary return on KRW 213,484,50 for the acquisition value as to the first/2 shares of the instant real estate (i.e., acquisition value of KRW 174,576,50 for the first/2 shares of the instant building, KRW 38,908,00 for the acquisition value of the first/2 shares of the instant building), and the transfer value of KRW 349,99,99,99, and KRW 23,745,088 for the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2015.
C. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the acquisition value of 1/2 shares in the instant land should be KRW 269,355,500 according to the appraisal result. The Plaintiffs filed a request for correction with the Defendant for reduction of KRW 22,479,708 of the transfer income tax reverted to the transfer of 1/2 shares in the instant real estate in 2015.
On December 14, 2015, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiffs’ above request for correction.
(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. We examine the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' action ex officio by examining the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' action.
If 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 shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The fact that the Defendant revoked the disposition of this case on Nov. 29, 2017 is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the lawsuit by the Plaintiffs is not existing.