Seoul High Court 2015Nu71053 (Law No. 31, 2016)

Examination 2014-0023 (O4.27)

Whether the second tax investigation and the fourth tax investigation of this case constitute a duplicate tax investigation

Since the second tax investigation by the director of the tax office and the fourth tax investigation constitute a duplicate tax investigation, the disposition of this case is revoked ex officio according to the judgment below that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the lawsuit of this case is to seek revocation of the disposition that is not already extinguished, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

Article 81-4 of the Basic Act

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du5252 ( October 25, 2017)

KimAi-be1

00 Other 1

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu71053 Decided August 31, 2016

201.01.25

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between Plaintiff KimA and Defendant 00 shall be borne by the director of the tax office, and the part arising between Plaintiff ParkB and DefendantCC director shall be borne by the director of the tax office, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its effect and shall no longer exist, and no longer exists.

A revocation suit against an administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 2012.

12. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided 13.

According to the records, the Defendants are aware of the fact that they ex officio revoked each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiffs pursuant to the judgment below after filing the instant appeal. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition that was not extinguished and became unlawful as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

Even if the Defendants did not refund the total amount of tax in question to the Plaintiffs after the revocation of each of the instant dispositions, that is, even if they did not refund the total amount of tax in question to the Plaintiffs, this is nothing more than the interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition in question, which is an appeal litigation, and the scope of refund in the civil procedure. Furthermore, regarding the scope of refund reverted to the Plaintiffs, even if the disposition imposing KRW 1,272,88,310 on the Plaintiffs KimA and the disposition imposing KRW 76,185,970 on the Plaintiff ParkB was revoked, the imposition of KRW 776,970 against the Plaintiffs, which is the global income tax paid in 209, shall be deemed to be limited to KRW 981,982,210, and KRW 544,420

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the court to directly judge.

Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed, and the part arising between the plaintiff KimA and the defendant 00 of the total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff KimA and the director of the tax office is the defendant 00, the plaintiff ParkB and the defendantCC

The part arising between the head of the tax office shall be borne by the chief of the tax office, and by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.