on January 4, 2013, 2013

Whether capital gains from the acquisition date of the previous house and the day before the acquisition date shall be reduced or exempted.

Since it is apparent that the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the disposition imposing capital gains tax stated in the purport of the claim seeking revocation by the Plaintiff, the instant lawsuit was extinguished and sought revocation of the disposition without any benefit of lawsuit, and thus, was unlawful.

Article 99-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

U.S. P. P. P. P.S.

2013Gudan51131 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff 1

Seoul Gwangjin-gu Doe Doena

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys △△-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant △△ Director

Litigation Performers △△△

January 22, 2015

February 5, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 2006 to the Plaintiff on May 4, 2012 is revoked.

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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

However, on December 31, 2014, where the lawsuit is pending, the Defendant’s ex officio revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax stated in the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation is apparent by the evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings. As such, the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of the disposition that is not extinguished and thus, became unlawful as it lacks legal interest.

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed, and the litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.