claim to nullify the invalidity of the already paid taxation disposition and whether there is a benefit of confirmation

If taxes are already paid according to the disposition of imposition of taxes, there is no tax obligation according to the disposition of imposition. Therefore, the claim for nullification of the disposition of imposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu424 Delivered on January 13, 1981, 83Nu83 Delivered on July 12, 1983

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 86Gu131 decided May 7, 1987

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If taxes are already paid upon the disposition of tax imposition, there is no tax obligation according to the disposition of tax imposition. Therefore, the claim for nullification of the disposition of tax imposition is a party member's case where the claim for invalidity of the disposition of tax imposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation (see each judgment of 80Nu424, Jan. 13, 1981).

2. However, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim against the farmland tax of 39,132,400 won and the resident tax of 2,934,930 won, among the disposition imposing the farmland tax of this case for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity, and the disposition imposing the resident tax of 39,132,39 won and the resident tax of 2,934,922 won among each of the above tax amount were already paid by the non-party on February 27, 1987, prior to the conclusion of the court's argument of the court below ( April 23, 1987).

Therefore, although the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the disposition on this portion is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation, the court below should have deliberated on the merits, which is the matter of ex officio investigation, and have accepted part of the plaintiff's claim, and ultimately, it cannot avoid criticism that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the benefit of confirmation in administrative litigation and failing to exhaust all deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)