Suwon District Court 2016Guhap62918 (2017.08)

Revocation of a disposition which has not already been extinguished is illegal as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

The part seeking revocation is seeking the revocation of an unexploitable disposition, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is inappropriate as there is no benefit of lawsuit, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall

Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu41957 ( August 16, 2017)

J**

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap62918 Decided October 28, 2017

2017.12

oly 2017.08.16

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. As to the portion arising in the first instance among the total costs of the lawsuit, 9/10 of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by the Defendant respectively, and by the Defendant for the portion arising after the appeal.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant’s global income tax (additional tax) KRW 13,402,210 on January 4, 2016 for the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016

(B) global income tax of 133,373,840 won (including additional taxes), global income tax of 2014, 2013;

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 89,209,730 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

In the first instance court on January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of each global income tax disposition (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff in 2012, 2013, and 2014. The court of first instance revoked the part exceeding KRW 6,479,224 of the imposition disposition of global income tax for 2014 and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim.

As a result, only the defendant appealed (the plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal to the court of first instance, but the petition of appeal was rejected because it failed to comply with the order to recognize or correct the court of first instance). The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the amount exceeding 6,479,224 won out of the amount of imposition 11,716,623 won of global income tax imposed by the defendant for 2014

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case (limited to the scope of the trial of this court) is legitimate

Judgment ex officio is made.

The Defendant’s correction of the amount of KRW 5,237,39, which exceeds KRW 6,479,224, out of KRW 11,716,623, which was imposed on global income tax for 2014, July 21, 2017, which was after the date of closing the argument in this Court (i.e., KRW 11,716,623, 623 -6,479,224), is significant in this court. Accordingly, the Defendant’s correction of the amount of KRW 5,237,39, among the imposition of global income tax for 2014, which was imposed on the Plaintiff, is no longer effective. Accordingly, among the imposition of global income tax for 2014, the portion seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax for 5,237,399, which was subject to the instant court’s judgment, was unlawful because there was no benefit in the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 202Du1282, Dec. 13, 2012012).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part against the defendant among the lawsuit in this case against the defendant (the part against which revocation is sought of KRW 5,237,39 of the disposition imposing penalty tax for global income tax for 2014) shall be dismissed as unlawful. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, 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, but with respect to the payment of litigation costs, the part arising in the first instance among the total litigation costs shall be maintained as it is by the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part arising after the appeal shall be borne by the defendant