District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-176 ( December 21, 2016)

Even if it is registered as a representative director on the corporate register, if it is not actually operated, the income of the corporation whose ownership is unclear shall not be reverted to him.

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) The actual operator appears to be the supplementary intervenor to the defendant, and the plaintiff was registered as the representative director and cannot be deemed to have actually been operated. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case where the plaintiff was deemed to be the representative and the comprehensive income tax

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

(Disposition)2017Nu1041 global income and revocation of disposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 21, 2017

July 5, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 2,975,620, and global income tax of KRW 126,928,820, each of which belongs to the year 201, for which the Defendant, working in the Gu Office, rendered the Plaintiff on June 1, 2014, shall be revoked. The decision of the first instance court in the place of the lawsuit shall be revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

Since the defendant revoked all of the dispositions of this case after the judgment of the court of first instance, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

On the other hand, when an administrative disposition is revoked, the 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (including additional numbers), it is recognized that the defendant revoked each of the dispositions of this case ex officio in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance on May 18, 2017, which was after filing the appeal of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case has already been extinguished and the lawsuit of this case has not been revoked, and thus, the defendant's defense has merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is to be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.