As to this, only the defendant appealed, but before the remand, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim (as to KRW 31,690,321) except the dismissed part and the dismissed part.

The plaintiff appealed only against this, but the plaintiff appealed to 83,58,747 won except for the part of KRW 1,911,803 which was dismissed in the first instance trial.

The Supreme Court reversed the part against the plaintiff in the judgment prior to remand and remanded this part to the trial court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff constitutes 51,898,426 won which the plaintiff lost in the first instance court but did not appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed this part.

Therefore, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to KRW 31,690,321 (=8,588,747), which the Plaintiff lost in the trial before remanding (=51,898,426).

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 37, the Defendant lost the Defendant in the first instance trial, which was the part exceeding KRW 51,898,426, out of KRW 83,58,747, which was subsequent to the remand of this case, of KRW 31,690,321, which was in excess of KRW 83,58,747, which was subsequent to the remand of this case.

It can be recognized that the amount of KRW 31,690,321, among the disposition imposing gift tax on the plaintiff, is no longer effective.

Therefore, the part of KRW 31,690,321 among the lawsuit of this case is to seek the revocation of an unexploited disposition, and thus, it became unlawful as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided December 13, 2012, 2012).3. As such, the Defendant is the part of KRW 31,690,321 of the instant lawsuit.