Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of imposition of the tax even in cases where the tax guarantee insurance policy is appropriated for the collection of the tax and does not bear the current tax liability (negative)

Since the Defendant’s tax imposed according to the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax in this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s invalidity is null and void, it is clear that the Plaintiff does not bear any tax liability under the above disposition, if the Defendant collected the above securities and appropriated them for the above tax, even though the Plaintiff failed to pay the tax within the grace period, and therefore, the Plaintiff does not have any interest in confirming the invalidity of the disposition in this case as an independent lawsuit, aside from claiming a return of unjust enrichment on the grounds that the disposition is null and void.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu159 delivered on February 10, 1976, 80Nu476 delivered on March 23, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu83 Delivered on July 12, 1983

Plaintiff

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu48 delivered on January 12, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, since the tax imposed by the defendant on the occasional imposition disposition of capital gains tax in this case by the plaintiff's assertion that the tax is null and void is not paid within the grace period as the plaintiff sought a deferment of collection of the above tax, and the defendant appropriated the tax in this case by the collection of the above securities. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff does not bear the current tax liability pursuant to the above disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the tax in this case is a precedent of the Supreme Court, separate from the issue of a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that the above disposition is null and void, it has no interest in confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 74Nu159 delivered on February 10, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu83 delivered on July 12, 1983). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and acceptable, and it is not justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation or incomplete deliberation as alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)