Suwon District Court 2012Guhap3041 ( December 12, 2012)

Examination Transfer 2011-0274 ( December 23, 2011)

The disposition is revoked ex officio, and there is no interest in legal action.

Since it can be recognized that the court of appeal has decided to revise the capital gains tax to revoke the disposition ex officio while the appeal is pending, the lawsuit of this case is subject to any disposition no longer existent by already extinguishing the lawsuit of this case, and thus, it is unlawful as there

2013Nu2725 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for rectification of capital gains tax

l. thisA, 2.B. 3. ThisCC

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap3041 Decided December 12, 2012

July 3, 2013

July 24, 2013

1.The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. All of the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

On April 7, 2011, the head of Leecheon Tax Office’s refusal to make a request for correction of capital gains tax against Plaintiff Lee In-A, and the head of the Native Tax Office’s revocation on September 20, 201, both the Plaintiff BB and thisCC’s refusal to make a request for correction of capital gains tax against Defendant Lee In-A.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it cited it 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 as there is no interest in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). In full view of the purport of the remaining arguments in each entry in No. 1-3 of evidence No. 1-3, and the defendants may resolve to revise capital gains tax to cancel ex officio on April 2, 2013 when the appellate trial of this case is pending, and then notify the plaintiffs thereof at that time. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is subject to no longer existing disposition after the extinguishment of the lawsuit of this case, and it is deemed unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the lawsuits in this case are 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 is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the defendants in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.