logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015. 03. 12. 선고 2014두44816 판결
청구인이 신고한 취득가액을 부인하고 등기부상 전소유자와의 계약서상 매매대금을 취득가액으로 하여 과세한 처분은 정당함[각하]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court-2013-Nu-53860 ( October 22, 2014)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho Jae-2012-China-3798 ( October 29, 2012)

Title

Any disposition that denies the acquisition value reported by the claimant and imposes tax on the purchase price under the contract with the former owner on the register as the acquisition price is justifiable.

Summary

On the other hand, the claimant does not present objective evidence on the petition, such as the details paid to the former owner, while the proceeds from acquiring the land in question are not presented to the former owner. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the petition for claim.

Related statutes

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

Cases

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44816

Plaintiff-Appellant

○ Doz.

Defendant-Appellee

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu53860 Decided October 22, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

2015.03.12

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

Judgment ex officio is made.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit 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 records, the defendant's disposition of this case on February 2, 2015, which was after filing the appeal of this case.

As can be known the fact of revocation by the authority, the lawsuit of this case is already extinguished and sought for the revocation of the disposition that is not yet extinguished, and became illegal as there has been no benefit of lawsuit.

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

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judges

Justices Kim Jong-○

Judges

Justices Lee Dong-young

Judges

Justices High ○○

Chief Justice Kim Jong-○

arrow