A. Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of a tax imposition disposition after tax payment (negative)

B. Whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative agency’s non-performance without having filed an application for refund of the amount of tax payable (=applicable law)

(a) If the tax amount imposed has already been paid, the tax obligation upon the disposition of imposition shall not currently exist, and thus, the claim for nullification of the disposition of imposition shall not have the benefit of confirmation.

B. In a case where an administrative agency does not perform a specific administrative act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people under the law but does not file an appeal against the rejection of an application for such administrative act, it is not allowed to bring an appeal against the administrative agency’s rejection of the application for the said administrative act, but it is not allowed to bring an appeal against the non-act itself to seek revocation of the said administrative agency’s non-act itself. Since, after the payment of the imposed tax amount, it cannot be viewed as the rejection disposition unless the application for refund of the payable tax amount was filed, the agency’s rejection of the non

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu159 Decided February 10, 1976 80Nu476 Decided March 23, 1982

East Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd., Counsel for the next full-time lawyer

Head of Ulsan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu126 delivered on January 25, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff has already paid the tax to the defendant in accordance with the disposition of imposition of each value-added tax in this case, and in such a case, there is no tax obligation under each of the above dispositions. Therefore, the claim for confirmation of invalidity of each of the above dispositions is a party's case where it is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation (Supreme Court Decision 74Nu159 delivered on February 10, 1976), and there is no need to change the opinion of the party members.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interest of confirmation such as theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

An administrative disposition subject to appeal under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to a specific act that affects the rights and obligations of the people with regard to a specific matter as a disposition by an administrative agency under public law. Therefore, an appeal litigation may not be filed unless there is any act by such administrative agency.

Therefore, in a case where an administrative agency does not perform a specific administrative act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people under the law but does not do so, the administrative agency may file an appeal suit against the rejection of the application regarding the administrative act, but it is not allowed under the current law to file the so-called non-act suit seeking the revocation of the administrative agency itself.

In the preliminary claim of this case, the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition that the defendant did not refund the value-added tax of this case to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff itself acknowledges that the plaintiff did not refund the above tax amount to the defendant, so it cannot be viewed as identical to the rejection disposition, and thus, the above preliminary claim is illegal as it constitutes a lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-act. Therefore, the judgment below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the rejection disposition like the theory.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)