2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by thisB(O-OOOO).

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax (additional tax) for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2012 and corporate tax (additional tax) for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the total amount of 490 income deduction for the person who received the receipt from the Plaintiff on the ground of the imposition of corporate tax (additional tax) against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of global income tax for the total amount of 507 income deduction for the total amount of 07 income deduction for the year 2010, respectively, is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff was investigated by the Defendant on the suspicion of issuing false donation receipts from November 21, 201 to November 30 of the same year, as the Plaintiff was an inspector located in OO-dong 65-1, O-dong O-dong 65-1, and B was investigated by the Defendant.

B. On January 5, 2012, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 490 among KRW 494 of the donation receipts issued by the Plaintiff in 2009, KRW 507 of the donation receipts issued in 2010, and KRW 507 of the donation receipts issued in 2010 were issued in falsity without actually receiving the donation. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed respectively corporate tax (additional tax) for the year 2009 and corporate tax (additional tax) for the year 2010.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination on April 3, 2012, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on July 20, 2012.

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant revoked ex officio the above disposition due to procedural defect that did not state the grounds for calculation in the notice of tax payment under the above B-3-1 (Evidence A-1), and on April 2, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing corporate tax (Evidence B-2, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the same content as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 to 21 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

1) Legal principles on the capacity of the temple to be a party

An independent inspection with substance is naturally a foundation or an association which is not a juristic person, but has the capacity to be a party, but the individual inspection without such substance is merely merely a facility for Buddhist purposes and has no capacity to be concerned. However, in order to be deemed to have an independent inspection as an independent inspection, there must be not only a considerable number of believers, such as Buddhist inspection, which is a physical element, such as awareness of human elements, and there should be a need to carry out social activities with its own life in accordance with the rules as an organization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da42179, Jan. 30, 201). If an individual purchases land and constructs a temple building on the ground and constructs an Buddhist inspection building on the ground, and if it is impossible to do so, the creator of the inspection was registered as an inspection belonging to the specific inspection group and registered as an independent inspection facility in the name of the inspection, and thus, it should be deemed that the inspection was merely an independent inspection organization or an association of 200 persons, not an individual.

Meanwhile, in cases where an inspection, which was managed and operated as a private inspection, was registered as an inspection belonging to the specific inspection group and was appointed as a chief inspector from the specific inspection group, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the inspection group, the inspection shall be an independent inspection with the substance, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da41508, Sept. 26, 1995). However, if the inspection was registered as an inspection under the name of the specific inspection group, and there was no rules or organization on the operation of the inspection organization or property, and the new inspection was not involved in the operation of the inspection, it shall not be deemed that the inspection facility is an independent inspection with the capacity of an independent inspection entity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da41508, Sept. 26, 1995).

2) Determination

In light of the purport of the plaintiff's evidence No. 1-3, No. 4, No. 13, No. 14, and No. 15, No. 4-1, No. 8, and No. 12-1, the plaintiff was established in the name of this court and transferred to the current location on Oct. 28, 1998, the plaintiff was registered in the name of the National Tax Service on the 6th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff's request for the transfer registration of the above No. 2, No. 3, No. 14, and No. 15, No. 2, No. 7, No. 2, and No. 2, No. 2, No. 166, No. 7, No. 2, No.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is merely registered as a temple belonging to the Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sik and is not an independent temple having the substance as a religious organization, but a simple Buddhist facility, an individual temple of the EE, which is an independent Buddhist temple, so it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff has the capacity to be a party as the subject to whom the independent rights and obligations accrue.

B. Preliminaryly, we examine the Defendant’s defense of safety.

1) The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the believers, who received donation receipts from the Plaintiff, individually, claims revocation of the disposition of global income tax assessment, the Plaintiff is dismissed on the ground of the existence of the disposition of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the revocation of the disposition of global income and the disposition of the believers

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to seek revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax on guidance should be dismissed without standing to sue.

2) According to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking revocation can be instituted by a person who has a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition, etc., so whether a person who is not the other party to an administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition is determined depending on whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition. Here, legal interest refers to individual, direct, and specific interest protected under the relevant disposition laws and regulations and relevant laws (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6716, Jul. 28, 2006).

Since the Plaintiff’s believers are standing to sue the revocation of the global income tax imposition disposition and the legitimacy of the global income tax imposition disposition regardless of the instant disposition can be sufficiently contested, the Plaintiff, other than the taxpayer and the other party to the disposition, cannot be deemed to have legal interests seeking the revocation of the global income tax imposition disposition against the believers.

Therefore, since standing to sue is not recognized to seek revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax in the instant lawsuit is unlawful (in addition, it is difficult to view that the purport of the claim in this part is specified).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.