2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 22, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 100% of the shares of ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and took office as the representative director, but entered into a contract with ○○○ on or around October 29, 2004, and thereafter transferred 51% of the shares of the said company to ○○○○○○. On November 17, 2007, new ○○ was appointed as the representative director of the said company. However, the tax authority did not accept a report on the above shareholder change, and the representative of the said company was changed to ○○○ on November 25, 2004, but was changed to ○○ on June 29, 2005.

B. On February 9, 2007, 2007, after ○○○○ Tax Office, which was run ex officio on June 30, 2006, the Defendant-affiliatedd Co., Ltd., imposed a value-added tax of KRW 8,298,233 on the company as to the remaining goods during the purchase of fixed assets and inventory assets until the closure of the business, and imposed a disposition of KRW 8,298,233 on the company, on the ground that the above company was in arrears and the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder, and the Plaintiff was notified that the Plaintiff should pay the said tax to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2007, and seized the real property under the Plaintiff’s ownership on the basis of the taxation

C. However, with respect to the building of 5 units, including the underground floor Nos. 519-5 and 1 on two parcels, owned by the Plaintiff, ○○○○○ District Court, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○, upon the application of the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, was in progress. Upon the completion of the sale procedure, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the amount to be actually distributed on October 12, 2007, 683,319,065 won was distributed to the Defendant, who is the issuing authority, in the order of 8th, 9,244,160 won, and the remaining amount after the distribution was made in the order of 9,174,529 won, and the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant on the distribution date as a whole, and within 707 days from the date of distribution, 207.

There is no dispute, or there is no dispute, Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, Eul evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 18, and all the purport of the pleading.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that there was no transaction in which the value-added tax is imposed for the company's representative director, and as seen above, 51% of the shares of the company was already transferred to ○○ on November 17, 2004, and the plaintiff cannot become the secondary taxpayer. Thus, the distribution of the shares of the company to the defendant in this case under the premise that it is a legitimate disposition of imposition in the distribution schedule of this case should be deleted and corrected to distribute the amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the above distribution schedule is justifiable since the tax imposition disposition against the plaintiff in domestic affairs does not constitute a serious and obvious invalidation even if it is unlawful.

B. In light of the above, even if there is an unlawful reason that can revoke a tax disposition, unless the tax disposition is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, such administrative disposition is valid until it is lawfully revoked by the fairness and executory power of the administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). Thus, the validity of the above administrative disposition cannot be denied in the civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). In order to make the administrative disposition null and void as a matter of course, the defect as well as the defect must be important and apparent, and the obvious defect here refers to that the administrative disposition itself clearly shows the defect itself (in a form other than the other) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690, Oct

In this case, even if the imposition of value-added tax on the ○○○○ Group or the secondary taxpayer designation disposition on the Plaintiff based on it is unlawful as alleged by the Plaintiff, considering the above, in light of the fact that the representative director on the business registration did not report the change of shareholder in the new ○○○○ future and became the Plaintiff, the designation of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed null and void as it cannot be deemed to be a serious and obvious defect, and it cannot be deemed null and void, and no other evidence exists to deem that the defect is significant and obvious. Thus, in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above tax disposition or the secondary taxpayer designation disposition, unless it becomes invalid due to the revocation or cancellation of the disposition, it cannot be deemed that there exists a tax claim against the Plaintiff by denying the validity of the disposition in the civil litigation procedure, so long as it does not lose its validity due to the revocation or cancellation of the disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant is without any justifiable reason.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.