Incheon District Court 201Guhap3450 ( December 28, 2011), Supreme Court 2013Du12829 ( October 13, 2014)

With respect to the cancellation of the sales contract, corporate tax may be corrected by deducting the sales price from the sales price initially reported.

Where a contract related to the validity of a transaction, act, etc. which is the basis of calculating the tax base and amount in the initial return, determination or correction after the statutory due date of return of national tax expires, is cancelled by the exercise of the right of rescission or is cancelled or cancelled due to unavoidable reasons which occur after the contract is

2014Nu358 Revocation of a disposition rejecting rectification of corporate tax

AA Construction Co., Ltd.

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap3450 Decided December 28, 2011

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu3165 Decided May 3, 2013

Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12829 Decided March 13, 2014

August 28, 2014

September 4, 2014

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.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the claim for correction of corporate tax (OOOO of the business year 2008, 2009, OOOO of the business year 2009) filed on December 9, 201 against the plaintiff on January 11, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

This part of the judgment is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance (as stated in the second half to third half of the judgment of the court of the first instance). Thus, 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.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall become 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014DuOOO, May 29, 2014).

B. According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the defendant made a decision to revoke the instant rejection disposition ex officio on August 1, 2014, and notified the plaintiff. There is no other counter-proof. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is sought for revocation of the rejection disposition which has already been extinguished and the interest in the lawsuit has already been rejected. Thus, it is deemed that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is illegal as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

C. Ultimately, the defendant's main defense to the effect that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed on the grounds that the rejection disposition of this case is revoked and no longer exists.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, and it is revoked, but the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.