Seocho 2012west 3228 ( November 01, 2012)

A revocation suit against a non-existent administrative disposition is not appropriate because there is no interest in the lawsuit.

The Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the disposition imposing capital gains tax stated in the purport of the claim during the proceeding of the lawsuit is apparent. As such, the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of a disposition that does not exist, and thus, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as it is unlawful

Transfer income tax reduction or exemption for purchasers of Newly-built houses under Article 99 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan1945 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AAA

Head of Seocho Tax Office

April 17, 2015

April 28, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the capital gains tax of 2006 imposed on the Plaintiff on April 10, 2012 by the Defendant shall be 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, the Defendant’s ex officio revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax stated in the purport of the claim during the proceeding of the lawsuit is apparent by the description of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings. As such, the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of the disposition that does not exist, and thus, was unlawful as it has

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