(영문) 대법원 2015. 03. 12. 선고 2014두44816 판결

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.