The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition, including acquisition tax, was unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the notification date of the disposition.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is that the instant disposition was rendered against a person who is not a person liable to pay acquisition tax, and thus, the lower court erred by failing to deliberate and make a judgment on the instant disposition, even though there was a defect of invalidation.

In principle, a claim for revocation of a taxation disposition cannot be deemed to include the purport of seeking nullification of the said taxation disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu546, Jul. 27, 1983); and even in cases where seeking revocation in the sense of declaring the invalidity of the taxation disposition as a matter of course, the requirements for filing a lawsuit for revocation must be satisfied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu175, May 29, 1984). In addition, even if a court’s ruling does not state a direct determination on a party’s assertion, if it is possible to find out that the party’s assertion was cited or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment. Even if a court’s ruling did not state a direct determination, it cannot be said that there was an error of omission of judgment due to lack of influence

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s failure to clearly dismiss the instant disposition as to the assertion that the disposition is void as a matter of course is unreasonable, inasmuch as the instant lawsuit, which did not seek the revocation of the disposition and did not seek the invalidity of the period for filing a lawsuit, is unreasonable as it exceeds the period for filing a lawsuit. In so doing, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by omitting a judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.