1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) revoked a disposition imposing gift tax (hereinafter “disposition imposing gift tax”) as of December 1, 2015; (b) sought revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax as of February 1, 2016; and (c) revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax as of March 2, 2009; and (b) sought revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax as of March 2, 2016. The first instance court accepted only the Plaintiff’s claim revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax as of March 1, 20

Therefore, since only the defendant has lodged a legitimate appeal as to the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal after the sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., June 27, 2018), but did not revise whether the petition of appeal is related to the petition of appeal within the prescribed period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do

The scope of the court's adjudication shall be limited to the claim for revocation of the imposition of gift tax of this case corresponding to the part against the defendant in the first instance.

3. Where an administrative disposition is revoked as to whether a claim for revocation of the imposition of gift tax of this case is lawful, such disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du13655 Decided October 25, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 201Du15343 Decided October 13, 201, etc.). According to the records, since the first instance court rendered a judgment of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant issued a decision of revocation of the ex officio revocation of the imposition of gift tax under subparagraph 1 of this case against the Plaintiff (Evidence 12 of this case). Thus, the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the ex officio revocation of the instant lawsuit as above among the instant lawsuit becomes invalid.