It cannot be deemed that administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy, and therefore no liability for damages is available.

Even if any administrative disposition is revoked after it is illegal in an appeal litigation, it cannot be determined by the intention or negligence of a public official, and it cannot be deemed that he/she lost objective legitimacy, and therefore no liability for damages exists.

Article 21 of the State Compensation Act

2014 Ghana 216795 Damages, etc.

OO

OOO

July 24, 2014

August 14, 2014

Note. Do.

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 000 and the amount of KRW 000 from March 19, 2009, KRW 200 and the amount of KRW 00 from June 26, 2012, KRW 30 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from June 26, 2012 to the delivery date of the copy of each complaint of this case, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 2008, the Administrator of 000 head of 2000 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 300 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 300 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 300 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 200 head of 100 head of 200 of 200 head of 3000 head of 200

Afterwards, the head of 000 Administrator decided that the land in this case was owned solely by the plaintiff, unlike the plaintiff's assertion, and notified the head of the 000 letter of re-audit of such contents.

D. Accordingly, on July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff revised the transfer income tax for the year 2003 upon the transfer of the instant land from KRW 00 to KRW 000 (the transfer income tax amount has increased by KRW 000, but the acquisition value and necessary expenses have increased by more than KRW 00, and the transfer income tax has been reduced by 00). (e) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Chapter 00 with the Busan District Court for the revocation of the transfer income tax imposition under the Busan District Court Decision 000Guhap 00, and the said court on September 22, 2011, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land was the source aa, and that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the said land was not solely purchased at the investigation agency, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of the said land was unlawful in light of whether the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax was imposed upon the Plaintiff’s owner of the said land.

F. On June 15, 2012, where the Busan High Court 000Nu000 was pending in the appellate trial, the Plaintiff is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and Aaa. The Plaintiff’s share is 42.59% (the percentage of the Plaintiff’s share in the deposit passbook in the name of dd's deposit passbook out of the purchase price of the instant land), and the transfer income tax for the year 2003 following the transfer of the instant land was corrected from 000 to 000 won by reducing the transfer income tax for the year 2003 from 00 won. Accordingly, the Chapter 00 refunded to the Plaintiff the amount of tax paid on June 222, 2012, including KRW 00 (including additional dues), the legal interest of the national tax refund, and the additional payment on the refund of the national refund tax, KRW 00,000, including KRW 00,000.

G. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff reduced the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2003 as of March 19, 2009, and the Busan High Court rendered a judgment on July 27, 2012, on the ground that “the instant land is owned solely by aa and its transfer margin belongs to aaa,” the said disposition that is based on the premise that the said land is owned by the Plaintiff and aaa is unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the appeal of Chapter 00 on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable.”

Accordingly, the head of 00 letter revoked the remaining disposition as above and decided to refund 000 won of the tax amount paid on October 5, 2012 (including additional dues), the legal interest of the national tax refund, and the additional refund on the refund of national tax amount, including 000 won of the national tax refund. The above refund was appropriated for the national tax in arrears of the plaintiff (the transfer income tax, which is August 31, 2012, of the due date for payment) (the transfer income tax, which is August 31, 2012).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Administrator of May 26, 2009 to the effect that the instant land was erroneous in the disposition of capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff as a sole owner of a Aa. Nevertheless, the 000 registry rendered a judgment that the instant land was owned by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the decision of revocation was made as of July 31, 2009 as above. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the 00 registry, claiming that it is not the actual owner of the instant land, and received the winning judgment of the Plaintiff at the first instance trial, as in the foregoing 1. E., the Plaintiff asserted that it is not the actual owner of the instant land.

Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff is not the actual owner of the instant land, a letter of 00 copies were re-written a decision of reduction on June 15, 2012, and was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff in the appellate trial.

As seen above, due to erroneous imposition and collection of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff suffered enormous impediment to the real estate rental business, which the Plaintiff is not a self-financing. Ultimately, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the following damages caused by the Plaintiff’s imposition and collection of capital gains tax unfairly by the 000 master book, due to the erroneous determination by the 000 master book.

(1) 00 won with interest rate of 5% per annum from July 31, 2009 to June 15, 2012

(2) 00 won with interest rate of 5% per annum from June 16, 2012 to June 25, 2012

(3) Consolation money:0 million won

B. Determination

Even if an administrative disposition is revoked after an administrative disposition, it cannot be determined that it constitutes a tort by a public official’s intentional or negligent act. However, in a case where a public official in charge of such administrative disposition is deemed to have lost objective legitimacy by neglecting his/her duty of care when considering the general public official’s standard, it is reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of such administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. In this case, whether an objective legitimacy has been lost shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the form and purpose of an administrative disposition, whether the person was involved in the act of infringement, degree of involvement in the act of infringement, and degree of loss, etc., and the responsibility for compensating for loss should be determined by examining whether there is a substantial reason for the State or local government to bear the responsibility for compensating for loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da70600, May 12, 200). In light of the above legal principle, there is no objective evidence that the transfer income tax disposition was partially cancelled and unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.