Benefits of confirmation in the event that a tax is imposed and the tax is paid.

Where taxes are paid after being imposed a disposition of restricting the speculation of real estate, it is reasonable to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that there is no benefit in confirmation to seek the invalidation of the disposition.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu230 Decided January 27, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 24Nu1178 Decided November 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 24Nu17, Supreme Court Decision 11180 Decided July 16, 196, Supreme Court Decision 532No. 8984 Decided June 16, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 2503Da 2503, Decision 1164 Decided June 158)

Plaintiff

Head of the Southern Mine District Office

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 954,505, which the defendant against the plaintiff on February 17, 1975 against the plaintiff is null and void, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall return to the plaintiff 1,049,950 won with an interest of 5 percent per annum from September 1, 1975 to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

On August 14, 1974, the Plaintiff transferred to Nonparty 1 and 2 about 143 of the monthly-dong (number omitted) Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, the ownership of which was the Plaintiff. The Defendant imposed real estate speculation tax of KRW 954,505 on the Plaintiff as of February 17, 1975. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,049,955, which is the sum of the above tax amount of KRW 95,450,00,000,000,000,000,000 won over two times on March 20 and April 3, 1975, there is no dispute between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff’s ability to seek nullification of the above tax imposition is unlawful, and as long as the Plaintiff had already paid the tax amount pursuant to the Defendant’s tax imposition disposition, it is obvious that the Plaintiff did not have the current obligation as of February 17, 1975, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for nullification of the above tax imposition disposition cannot be asserted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)