(a) Whether it is possible to bring an action to nullify a tax imposition disposition after paying a tax due to a tax imposition disposition;

(b) In a case where a claim for a return of the tax already paid is filed on the premise that the tax imposition disposition is null and void, the litigation requirements are satisfied in a case where the claim has been filed for

A. An administrative litigation seeking the confirmation of invalidity of a tax imposition disposition is to seek the confirmation of non-existence of a tax obligation immediately and to seek the confirmation of non-existence of a tax obligation because of the lack of the level of load, and thus, there is an interest in the confirmation of invalidity only when the fulfillment of a tax obligation is inevitable as a result of the existence of a disposition of invalidation of appearance. If a tax amount has already been paid, there is no possibility for dispute as to the tax obligation as of the present

B. The consolidation of related litigation as stipulated in Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that an administrative litigation, which is the original litigation, is legitimate. In a case where a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a tax imposition disposition, which has no interest in the protection of rights, is combined with an illegal administrative litigation, the portion of the lawsuit seeking the claim for damages is also an unlawful lawsuit that lacks the requirements

Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 230 of the Civil Procedure Act

east Domsan Company

The director of the tax office

The action shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The defendant's imposition of Class A earned income tax on the plaintiff on January 9, 1969 and KRW 368,520 as Class A earned income tax on April 15, 1969 and KRW 368,520 on April 15, 1969 is confirmed to be null and void.

2. The defendant refund 1,187,704 won to the plaintiff and 368,520 won, and 1,187,704 won to the plaintiff, and 358,536 won to the plaintiff from January 15, 1969 to each full payment period of 100 won with the amount of 1,50 won with the rate of 50 won per annum from April 17, 1969 to each full payment period.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

With respect to a claim for the confirmation of invalidity of the tax imposition disposition, the administrative litigation seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the tax imposition disposition is the immediate request for the confirmation of the existence of the non-existence of the tax obligation. In this case, if the payment of the tax is inevitable due to the existence of the non-performance of the tax obligation, it shall not be deemed that there is any dispute over the existence of the current tax obligation, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that there is any legal interest in seeking the confirmation of invalidity. Accordingly, in light of this case, there is no legal interest in seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the tax imposition disposition as of January 9, 1969, since the defendant imposed the tax on the plaintiff as of January 9, 196, and the fact that the plaintiff already paid the tax imposition disposition with the above tax imposition disposition, and it is clear that the defendant is not liable for the non-performance of the existing non-performance of the tax obligation as of the date of the payment by the plaintiff, and the defendant also cannot be viewed as dispute over this part of the current tax imposition disposition with respect to the non-performance of the rights and obligations.

2. Next, with respect to a claim for refund of the amount of tax already paid under the premise that the disposition of imposition of the income tax is null and void, the consolidation of related litigation as stipulated in Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act is legitimate, which is the original litigation. Since the lawsuit seeking nullification of the disposition of imposition of the income tax has no interest in the protection of rights, the lawsuit seeking nullification of the disposition of imposition of the income tax is unlawful due to the failure to meet the requirements for the lawsuit as seen earlier. Thus, the above part of the claim seeking a consolidation of the administrative litigation cannot be deemed to be unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed as it is all unlawful or unlawful for the plaintiff's lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the disposition imposing income tax and claim for payment of money. It is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's charge as the losing party.

Judges Kim Hong-hun (Presiding Judge)