부가가치세 부과처분취소
1. The following part of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant among the lawsuits against the primary claim is the defendant.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 7 of the 3rd Part of the 7rd Part (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition”) shall be deleted.
B. On the 3rd page 8 through 9, the phrase “B evidence 9” shall be added to the “founded ground for recognition.”
(c)in Part 3, paragraph 7, add to:
d. The Defendant issued a notice of reduction of KRW 18,077,363 for the first term of 2010, and KRW 20,280,233 for the second term of 2010 for the second term of 5,514,643 for the second term of 2010 (hereinafter the revised reduction of KRW 18,077,391 for the first term of 2010, KRW 5,514,643 for the second term of 2010, and KRW 2,739,190 for the second term of 2010 for the second term of 2010 for the second term of 2010 for which reduction was corrected, the Defendant issued a notice of reduction and correction of KRW 5,514,643 for the second term of 2010 for which reduction was not corrected.
(i) "";
2. If an administrative disposition on the part of a claim for revocation of an ex officio on the amount of duty revoked among the primary claims is revoked, 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;
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided December 13, 2012, etc.). Ex officio, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part exceeding KRW 18,077,391 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 in the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 and the part exceeding KRW 5,514,643 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010.
Therefore, the part concerning the main claim of this case, which was revoked as above, is extinguished, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
3. Grounds for the court’s explanation as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition.