Supreme Court-2014-Du-38613 ( November 27, 2014)

A revocation suit against a non-existent administrative disposition is illegal because there is no interest in the lawsuit.

A revocation suit against a non-existent administrative disposition is illegal because there is no interest in the lawsuit.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

2014Nu7240 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

SS

Doegi Tax Director

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap3376 Decided November 21, 2013

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu53600 Decided June 20, 2014

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du38613 Decided November 27, 2014

August 19, 2015

September 16, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On November 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties as the secondary taxpayer of DDD; and (b) revoked all the notice of payment of the value-added tax and the wage and salary income tax stated in the separate sheet.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the statement between 4 and 9 of the first instance court's grounds for appeal No. 2, 4 and 9 of the fourth. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio deemed.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition does not become null and void, 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 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant disposition was revoked ex officio on August 27, 2015, which is after the judgment of remand of the Supreme Court, after the judgment of remand of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition that has not been extinguished, and thus, became unlawful as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.