The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

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.

(2) According to the records, the Defendants, after filing an appeal in the instant case, knew the facts that ex officio revocation of each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiffs was made pursuant to the lower judgment.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is seeking the revocation of a disposition that is not extinguished, and it became illegal as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

Even if the Defendants did not fully refund the relevant tax amount after the revocation of each of the instant dispositions, that is, the total determined tax amount to the Plaintiffs, this is irrelevant to the interests of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition, which is an appeal litigation, and is only a matter regarding the scope of the refund

Furthermore, in relation to the scope of refunds reverted to the Plaintiffs, even if the imposition of KRW 1,272,88,310 against Plaintiff A and the imposition of KRW 776,185,970 against Plaintiff B were revoked, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiffs are limited to KRW 981,982,210, and KRW 54,420,960, which are the amount of global income tax paid for the year 2009.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed. Of the total cost of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff A and the head of Suwon Tax Office shall be borne by the head of Suwon Tax Office, and the part arising between the plaintiff B and the head of Suwon Tax Office shall be borne by the