Gwangju High Court 2012Nu1692 ( October 27, 2013)

The early 2011 Gwangju67

If an administrative disposition is revoked, a revocation suit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the acquisition and disposal of the real estate of this case by the Plaintiff et al., as a whole, have continuity and repetition of business activities to the extent that the acquisition and disposal of the real estate of this case can be seen as business activities, since the Plaintiff et al. agreed to jointly operate the real estate investment business.

Articles 4 (Classification of Income), 17 (Dividend Income) of the Income Tax Act

2013Du15422 Revocation of disposition of revocation of capital gains tax imposition

IsaA

Head of Maritime Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 2012Nu1692 Decided June 27, 2013

January 15, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment ex officio is made.

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 Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

The record reveals the fact that the Defendant revoked the instant disposition as a direct authority on March 17, 2014, which was after filing the instant appeal. As such, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition that did not exist, and became unlawful as it did not have any interest in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly judge, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition