Where an administrative agency issues a rejection disposition, it cannot be deemed that an illegal omission, which is the subject of the appeal, exists, and thus the appeal is unlawful.

Where an administrative agency issues a rejection disposition against a party's filing of an appeal, it cannot be deemed that an illegal omission exists that is the subject of the appeal, and thus the appeal is unlawful.

National Tax Collection Act

2012 Doz. 19786 Confirmation of illegality of a request for registration of land substitution

Korea

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

October 19, 2012

November 30, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

It is confirmed that the omission that the Defendant did not request the registration of replotting to the Plaintiff with respect to the application for the registration of replotting of 1020-1 large 2,190.6 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is illegal.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 14, 1975, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City implemented a land readjustment project (additional) district 2 of Dong-dong, which was approved under subparagraph 29 of the public announcement of construction schedule. On September 20, 1982, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced a land substitution disposition pursuant to subparagraph 404 of the public announcement of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. According to the land substitution confirmation statement, the land substitution confirmation statement: Seoul Gangnam-gu 163-8, 163-9, 164-3, 165-1, 199-1, 199-3, 200-1, 200-1, 204-1, 307-4, 307-5, 307-6 (hereinafter referred to as the "previous land") acquired the ownership of each of the previous land in Gangnam-gu 163-196, 209-196, 307-196, 309-1, and 97.

B. On the other hand, AA is currently in arrears with the total of 83 items, including value-added tax, corporate tax, global income tax, and gift tax.

C. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to commission the registration of land substitution after replotting on the ground that the disposition of land substitution was taken as of April 26, 2012, and accordingly, there was a notice of land substitution disposition, so the Defendant is obligated to commission the registration of land substitution after replotting.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3, 4-1 through 9, 5-1 through 3, 7, 1 through 13, 1-1 through 13, 2-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-1 through 4-5, 5-7, 7-2, 1-1 through 13, 2-1, 3-

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant, as the implementer of Zone Two (Supplementary Land Readjustment Project) of Youngdong, was a land substitution disposition after the land substitution in the process of the project, and publicly announced on September 20, 1982. The defendant is obligated to entrust the registration of the land after the land substitution in accordance with the land substitution disposition pursuant to Article 65 of the former Land Partition and Rearrangement Project Act ( repealed by Act No. 6252, Jan. 28, 2000). The plaintiff has a right to request the registration of the land after the land substitution in accordance with the land substitution disposition. The plaintiff has a right to request the registration of the land substitution in relation to the entrustment of the land substitution registration since he/she has an interest in the shares of Jeong among the land after the land substitution as a tax payer of Jungdong after the land substitution. Thus, the defendant in receipt of the application from the plaintiff on April 26, 2012

2) The defendant's assertion

Since all land after replotting is not owned by Jeong, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has the right to file an application for the request for registration of replotting with respect to land after replotting. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and even if not, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case at the time when about two months have not elapsed since the request for registration of replotting was filed. Among the previous land, each land located in Y 307-4, 307-5, and 307-6 in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is unregistered land and its ownership relation is not clear, and thus, a considerable time is required for the defendant to respond to the plaintiff's request. Thus, the plaintiff's request is without merit.

B. Determination

B. Before determining the parties’ assertion, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is for the purpose of removing the passive state of omission or non-compliance with the administrative agency's response promptly by confirming that the omission is illegal if an administrative agency fails to respond to the legal response, such as accepting, rejecting, or rejecting an application based on the party's legal or sound rights within a reasonable period of time. Thus, if an administrative agency issues a rejection disposition against the party's request, it cannot be deemed that an illegal omission, which is the object of the lawsuit, is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1278, Jun. 9, 192). The record reveals that the plaintiff's request for registration of land substitution by the administrative agency on April 26, 2012 cannot be seen as being illegal since it is difficult for the defendant to claim that the plaintiff's request for registration of land substitution constitutes an administrative agency's request for rejection as of October 25, 2012.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.