사업자등록 직권말소의 계기가 된 폐업신고의 수리는 항고소송의 대상이 아님[국승]
Acceptance of a report on closure of business shall not be deemed an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation.
The acceptance of the report of business closure that has an opportunity for ex officio cancellation of business registration is difficult to recognize the disposal nature, and even if the act of receiving the report of business closure is an administrative disposition, it shall be subject to a disposition under the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, it shall not be subject to administrative litigation unless
2013Guhap3429 Disposition of revocation of revocation of closure or repair
IsaA
O Head of tax office
April 19, 2013
April 26, 2013
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's disposition to accept the report of the closure of the business place (OO,000) in the name of the plaintiff on May 25, 2012 is revoked.
On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a registration of restaurant business, etc. with the name of "OO" in Gangnam-gu Seoul OOdong, Seoul, and this case’s lawsuit claiming that EE, etc. without authority, forged a certificate of business closure and prepared a letter of delegation of business closure and submitted without authority attached, and that the Defendant illegally accepted it. However, business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is the purpose of the system to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and secure the taxation data, and it is established by submitting a report of business fact to the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of a business registration certificate is only an act of issuing a certificate verifying such registration. Since the ex officio cancellation by the tax authority under Article 5(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act is merely an act of ex officio cancellation, and it cannot be seen as an administrative disposition that does not change the status of business operator, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff did not voluntarily file a request for a registration of business closure under Article 205 of the Value-Added Tax Act.