1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. If an administrative disposition is revoked as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, such disposition is null and 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 Supreme Court Decision 2017Du38621 Decided June 29, 2017, etc.). According to the overall purport of the entry and pleadings in the evidence No. 12, the Defendant, after rendering a judgment in the first instance court, revoked ex officio the amount exceeding KRW 97,794,992, out of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 303,635,974, which belonged to the year 2014, in accordance with the purport of the first instance judgment on May 27, 2020, which was pending in the lawsuit in this court after rendering a judgment in the first instance. Thus, the instant lawsuit sought revocation of a disposition for which no lawsuit has already been extinguished, and thus, became unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

Since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.