Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-1013 ( April 20, 2017)

Cho Jae-20156- Daejeon-3456 (No. 12, 2016)

Whether the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of this case should be revoked because the investment in kind contract of this case was made by deception or the plaintiff's mistake.

The plaintiff et al. and the corporation of this case have an error of motive that the transfer income tax is not imposed on the plaintiff et al. according to the carryover taxation, and it is apparent that the plaintiff et al. would have not concluded the investment in kind contract of this case or not concluded the contract with the same contents at least if they knew that the transfer income tax is imposed on them. Thus, this constitutes an error in

[Related Acts]

Article 66 of the Restriction on Special Taxation of Corporate Tax for Agricultural Partnership Corporations, etc.

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju)-2017Nu3176 ( December 13, 2017)

박@@

o Head of the tax office

November 01, 201

December 13, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 383,518,280 won (268,31,420 won and 115,186,860 won) for the year 2014 imposed on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2015 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

We examine the legitimacy of ex officio a suit.

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 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010).

According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on October 20, 2017, which is pending in the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition that has not been extinguished, and became unlawful as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the litigation of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of litigation is

It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant under Article 32.