Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap10178 (2010.07)

As long as the reduction has been determined following a change in the appraised value of inherited real estate, there is no practical benefit to seek the continuation of procedures.

As long as the decision of reduction is already revoked due to changes in the appraised value of inherited real estate, there is no practical benefit to seek the continuation of the procedure, and rather, if the procedure is continued, it is anticipated that the rejection decision will

2010Nu22568 Detailed global income and revocation of disposition

Jeonn

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap10178 decided July 7, 2010

August 30, 2011

August 30, 2011

1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on June 1, 201 by the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person after the completion of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

(a) Details of the disposition;

On February 11, 2008, the Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 194,780,40 on the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the Deceased, for the year 2002, and thereafter rendered a decision to reduce the total income tax of KRW 34,242,390 for the year 202 as the Plaintiff changed the value of the real estate inherited from the Deceased (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

B. Progress of litigation

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 194,780,400 of global income tax for the year 2002, as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap10178, but reduced the purport of the instant disposition in accordance with the disposition of reduction and correction stated in the preceding paragraph. The said court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 7, 2010, and the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal.

C. Additional reduction and correction disposition and termination of the instant lawsuit

In the first instance, the Defendant rendered a decision to reduce the Plaintiff’s aggregate income tax for the year 2002 by KRW 63,99 according to the change in the Plaintiff’s equity ratio. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the instant lawsuit on May 17, 201 and the Defendant’s consent to the withdrawal of the said lawsuit on June 1, 2011 (the tax amount of KRW 63,99 was paid by the Plaintiff).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 47, 48, and 58 through 61, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the above private theory, the instant lawsuit is deemed to have been terminated by the withdrawal of the lawsuit on June 1, 2011, and as long as the Plaintiff seeks the continuation of the procedure while disputing this, the termination of the lawsuit must be declared based on Article 267 of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 67 and 135 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

B. Additional determination

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that, in the event that the lawsuit of this case is terminated due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit of this case, the decision of the court of first instance against the plaintiff becomes final and conclusive, and the plaintiff is obliged to pay the tax pursuant to the disposition of this case to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff seeks to obtain a judgment revoking the judgment of the court of first instance through continuation

(2) Determination

(A) The first instance judgment becomes null and void as the continuation of a lawsuit is retroactively extinguished pursuant to Article 267(1) of the Civil Procedure Act when a case is closed at the appellate trial stage (where an appeal is withdrawn, unlike this, the final and conclusive judgment of the first instance court would result in the final and conclusive judgment when the appeal is withdrawn). In this case, the first instance judgment became null and void.

(B) In addition, inasmuch as the instant disposition was already revoked on the part exceeding KRW 63,99 through the Defendant’s additional disposition of reduction and correction, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff, based on the above disposition, is liable to pay the Defendant the aggregate income tax on the said part.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have no practical benefit in seeking the continuation of the procedure on the grounds as alleged in its assertion regarding the instant lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu393, Nov. 23, 1982). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the remaining disposition of imposition exceeding KRW 63,99, out of the instant lawsuit, is unlawful, and thus, it is expected that the judgment of rejection will not be exempted if the procedure continues).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is determined as per Disposition by declaring that the withdrawal of the lawsuit was terminated on June 1, 2011.