Seocho 2012west 3427 ( October 30, 2012)

The defendant dismissed the disposition of taxation ex officio.

The defendant's disposition is revoked ex officio, and there is no disposition, and the revocation lawsuit against non-existent administrative disposition is illegal as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

Article 99-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act / [Special Taxation for Capital Gains Tax for Purchasers of Newly-built Houses

2013Gudan50121 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

◊◊세무서장

April 17, 2015

April 28, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax of 2006 to the Plaintiff on May 14, 2012 (it appears that May 1, 2012, written complaint appears to be clerical error) is revoked.

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 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

However, the Defendant’s ex officio revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax stated in the purport of the claim during the proceeding of the lawsuit is apparent by the description of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings. As such, the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of the disposition that does not exist, and thus, was unlawful as it has

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.