Incheon District Court 201Guhap949 (Law No. 19, 2011)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2009-0054 (Law No. 9.15, 2009)

A disposition is revoked ex officio while the lawsuit is pending and there is no interest in the lawsuit.

Since the lawsuit of this case is subject to a disposition that does not exist any longer after the lawsuit of this case is already extinguished, it is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

2013Nu8075 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap949 Decided May 19, 2011

April 10, 2013

April 24, 2013

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. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

This part of the judgment of the court is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

When examining ex officio, and when an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition is no longer effective, and the revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful because there is no benefit in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries in Eul and Eul, and evidence Nos. 5 and 6, where the lawsuit of this case is pending on March 20, 2013, it can be recognized that the defendant issued a resolution of correction of capital gains tax on the revocation of all the disposition of this case and notified the plaintiff of the revocation of the disposition on March 22, 2013, and the lawsuit of this case is subject to any disposition that does not exist any longer after the extinguishment of the lawsuit of this case, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs shall be borne by the defendant in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.