[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1982.1.15.(672),84]
Whether a disposition imposing tax is null and void, which misleads the legal relations or factual relations of the taxable object (negative)
The disposition imposing value-added tax (value-added tax) which misleads the legal relations or factual relations of taxable objects (if so recommended, misunderstanding that there is no fact of stone trading) is not a void as a matter of course, but can only be cancelled.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 71Nu112 Decided June 27, 1972 delivered on May 14, 1974
Electricals;
The Director of Gangnam District Office
Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu723 delivered on June 18, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff asserted as the ground for the plaintiff's claim that the legal relation or factual relations of the object of taxation and that if taxes are imposed, the taxation can only be deemed null and void, and that the tax can only be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 71Nu112 delivered on June 27, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 73Nu242 delivered on May 14, 1974). Although the plaintiff only caused brick retail trade with the trade name of the non-public building, and there was no transaction of building stones, the defendant misleads the plaintiff about the fact that the plaintiff was received from the purchaser on the ground that the private receipt of the building material transaction was discovered at the plaintiff's place of business. However, it is nothing more than pointed out the legal relation or factual relations of the object of taxation as above, and therefore, it cannot be deemed null and void due to such mistake. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified.
The judgment of the court below 71Do742 decided May 31, 1971, which is cited by the defendant, is that the delinquent taxes cannot be an issue with respect to the taxation which is naturally null and void due to a mistake in the determination of the taxable and taxpayer. Thus, this case is not appropriate.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)