1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case concerning the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the newly asserted by the plaintiff in this court pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, even though the instant disposition is not null and void as a matter of course, as long as the Plaintiff instituted a party lawsuit or civil lawsuit, the Plaintiff does not have a tax liability for the Plaintiff under the principle of substantial taxation, separate from the validity of the disposition.

There is an illegal cause that can be revoked in an administrative disposition unless the administrative disposition is deemed void as a matter of course.

The disposition shall be effective until it is lawfully revoked by the fairness or executory power of the administrative act.

As such, the validity of a disposition in a civil procedure cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). This is a lawsuit concerning a legal relationship based on an administrative agency’s disposition, etc., and the same applies to a party’s litigation procedure under the Administrative Litigation Act where a party to the legal relationship is the defendant.

In light of the above legal principles, the lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of the duty to pay tax in this case constitutes a party litigation, which is a lawsuit claiming the legal relationship itself under public law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du2765, Sept. 8, 200). In order to deem that there is no Plaintiff’s duty to pay taxes, the instant disposition is revoked or the instant disposition should be null and void.

However, the Plaintiff did not file a lawsuit seeking revocation against the legitimacy of the instant disposition within the filing period, and the instant disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as it is not clear that the defect is not clear, as the court of first instance properly held.

Therefore, the Defendant did not cancel the instant disposition ex officio.