Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap24122 (2013.05)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2707 ( October 25, 2011)

There is no benefit of action due to the extinguishment of the part seeking revocation

Since only a part of the disposition that the plaintiff seeks revocation remains due to the defendant's change, the exceeding part of the disposition that the plaintiff seeks revocation has already ceased to be subject to revocation, and this part of the lawsuit is illegal as it has no interest.

2013Nu2349 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of inheritance tax

Song AA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap24122 decided July 5, 2013

March 21, 2014

April 25, 2014

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

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

1. Purport of claim

The part of the disposition imposed by the Defendant on January 11, 2010 on the Plaintiff, which exceeds the OOO (including additional OOOO) of the inheritance tax, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to the revocation is dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

“The Plaintiff sought a judgment identical to the above purport of the claim, but the court of first instance rejected the lawsuit regarding the imposition of additional tax by the court of first instance, and ② accepted the claim seeking the revocation of the part exceeding the KRW OO in the imposition of inheritance tax OOOO(hereinafter “instant imposition disposition”). Since the Defendant only appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the above part ②, and the details of the disposition on February 2.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the second to third, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that since the defendant revoked the disposition of this case ex officio on March 6, 2014, it should dismiss the plaintiff's action.

B. Determination

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition becomes void 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 2011Du15343, Oct. 13, 201).

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant disposition on March 6, 2014, which was subsequent to the filing of the instant appeal; and (b) the entire purport of the entry and pleading in the evidence No. 7.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for partial revocation of the disposition of this case among the lawsuit of this case is a non-existent disposition, and thus, it became illegal as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of part of the disposition of this case is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusion, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, the plaintiff shall be dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the burden of the