[과오납금반환][공1975.7.15.(516),8478]
The effect of an administrative disposition imposing business tax and income tax on the property brought in by the head of the competent district tax office after recognizing the act of bringing in as a business activity where a significant quantity of the property brought in is disposed of to others.
Where a substantial quantity of the property brought in with permission for a reclamation project is continuously disposed of to another person, even if there is a mistake in legal relations or facts or any other defect in the recognition of taxation by imposing the business tax and income tax on the property brought in by mistake as a business act of the person brought in as a result of the act of bringing in, the head of the competent tax office may not immediately impose an administrative disposition for nullification of significant and obvious defect.
Attorney Kang Jae-sung et al.
The Minister of Justice shall transfer a legal representative of the Republic of Korea to the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office.
Seoul High Court Decision 74Na487 delivered on November 27, 1974
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the plaintiff's act of disposing of 12 kinds of machinery, such as heavy truck, which is the plaintiff's property in Japan as an agent for the purpose of carrying in the reclamation business in the 3th Donan-gun, Nam-gun, Nam-gun, which is a significant and unclaimed truck in the 1969.10. According to the court below's decision, the plaintiff's act of disposing of 12 kinds of machinery, such as the above 12 type of machinery, which is the plaintiff's property in Japan, can be viewed as an act of disposing of 150 items attached to the original judgment under the premise that the plaintiff's act of carrying in the 150th 1969.12 through 1971.12, the court below held that the plaintiff's act of disposing of 3rd Don-gun's property and the above act of disposing of 5.291,000 won in the 1st Don-gun's property tax office.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of the taxation disposition as a matter of course, which determined the instant taxation disposition as a matter of course, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In this regard, the appeal is with merit, and the lower judgment shall not be reversed.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)