beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Daejeon District Court 2013Gudan100141 ( October 11, 2013)
Title
Seeking revocation of a disposition extinguished by the defendant's ex officio revocation does not have the benefit of action.
Summary
It is recognized that the defendant revoked the disposition of this case ex officio and that the time of revocation reaches the plaintiff. The lawsuit of this case is to seek the revocation of the disposition not extinguished, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
Cases
2013Nu3328 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
AAA
Defendant, Appellant
Head of Busan District Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Gudan100141 Decided October 11, 2013
Conclusion of Pleadings
February 6, 2014
Imposition of Judgment
February 20, 2014
Text
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.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 131,950,000 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 8-1 and No. 8-2, the defendant revoked the instant disposition ex officio on January 13, 2014, and then reached the plaintiff. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the lawsuit of this case was already extinguished, and thus, it was unlawful as there was no interest in the lawsuit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is inappropriate, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as the conclusion is different, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. However, pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the total cost of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and it