[1] Standing to sue in administrative litigation

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there is a legal interest to seek revocation against the disposition of the tax authority refusing to file a request for correction on the sole ground that the head of the apartment management office performed the duty of reporting and paying global income tax for the management office, and filing a request

[1] Administrative litigation has no benefit in filing an administrative litigation, unless there is a benefit in filing a lawsuit only by a person who obtains a direct and specific benefit from the revocation of the pertinent disposition by an administrative agency, and only has a factual or indirect relationship.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there is a legal interest to seek revocation against the disposition of the tax authority that rejected a request for correction by reason of the fact that the head of the apartment management office performed the duty of reporting and paying global income tax and filing a request for correction for the management office

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 1 of the Income Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4277 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1175) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1381 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2434) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24247 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1499), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8129 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3284 delivered on March 8, 1996), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12487 delivered on June 28, 199 (Gong196Sang, 1269), Supreme Court Decision 9Nu3963909 delivered on June 29, 196 (Gong196Nu39639699 delivered on June 29, 1996)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Cho Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu2357 delivered on December 20, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Administrative litigation has no benefit to bring an administrative litigation against a person who has a legal, direct and indirect interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu4277, Apr. 24, 1990; 96Nu1405, Aug. 20, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for correction of the amount of tax already paid (hereinafter referred to as "request for correction") was unlawful since the management office was a representative of the Hyundai Apartment Management Office ( Address omitted) managing the Hyundai Apartment Complex of Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "Management Office") between May 1, 1997 and July 31, 200, and the management office filed a final return on the tax base and tax amount of global income tax on interest income belonging to 196 and 197, on July 20, 198, on the ground that the management office against the defendant constitutes an organization deemed as a corporation under Article 13 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and cannot be subject to global income tax, but it did not recognize that the defendant refused to pay the amount of tax, but the management office was the subject of the tax liability, and the plaintiff filed a claim for correction for the revocation of the tax return and payment of this case as the principal of the tax liability, and the plaintiff filed the claim for correction.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the subject of tax liability or misunderstanding of facts as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

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 Justices.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)