양도소득세 부과처분취소[국승]
Incheon District Court-2014-Gu Group-10292 ( October 14, 2014)
Disposition to impose capital gains tax
Since the disposition of this case was revoked ex officio in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance court, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit
2014Nu6883 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
○ ○
○ Head of tax office
Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gudan10292 Decided October 14, 2014
May 19, 2015
May 26, 2015
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The defendant's decision that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 60,393,540 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") for the plaintiff on April 1, 2013 is revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. Details of the disposition;
This part of the reasoning is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
According to the statement Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, since the defendant revoked the disposition of this case on January 21, 2015 in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance and notified the plaintiff of the result. As a result, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is merely subject to an administrative disposition for which no lawsuit of this case exists, or is merely subject to dispute over the validity of past legal relations, and thus, it is unlawful as
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as illegal, but the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked as it is unfair to conclude otherwise, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance in consideration of the fact that the defendant's revocation ex officio as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.