(심리불속행) 명의를 대여한 것에 불과하여 제2차 납세의무 지정은 무효[국승]
Seoul High Court-2018-Nu-44045 (Law No. 18, 2018)
The designation of the second tax liability is invalid because it is merely a lending of the name.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the payment notice disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as it is difficult to view that the payment notice disposition of this case was unlawful, since it was apparent that it was apparent that the facts should be accurately examined.
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 2018Du59113 Demanding nullification of the designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment
박@@ 외 2
O Head of tax office
The second instance decision
Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu44045 Decided September 19, 2018
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent