Seoul High Court 2015Nu62882 ( October 10, 2017)

Seocho 2012west 4005 (2014.04.04)

to seek the revocation of such disposition and there is no interest in the action

to seek cancellation of such disposition without prejudice and without prejudice to the interest of the

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

2017Du38034

KoreaA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu62882 Decided October 2017

July 11, 2017

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed

50% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

According to the records, after filing an appeal of this case, the defendant can know the fact that the part against the defendant among the dispositions of this case was revoked ex officio in accordance with the purport of the judgment below. Thus, this part of the lawsuit is to seek revocation of the disposition that is not extinguished, and thus, it

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the court to directly judge this case, the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed, and 50% of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent