2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant AA director is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Plaintiff confirms that imposition of KRW 35,967,90 of the value-added tax for the first term of 2010 on July 19, 2011 by Defendant AA Head of the tax office and imposition of KRW 6,371,790 of the global income tax for the year 2010 on February 1, 2012 by Defendant AA Head of the tax office is each void.

A. From January 6, 2010 to April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was registered as an individual entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as “instant business registration”) with respect to the general restaurant in the trade name, “AAAAA” (hereinafter referred to as “instant business place”) located in AAA Gu 1562-6 AFradist 203.

B. On July 19, 2011, Defendant AA director of the tax office did not report the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 regarding the pertinent business establishment; on the other hand, Defendant AA director of the tax office imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax amounting to 35,967,900 for the first period of 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing the value-added tax”); and notified Defendant AA director of the tax office of global income tax assessment data related thereto; on February 1, 2012, Defendant AA director of the tax office imposed the Plaintiff KRW 6,371,790 for global income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing the global income tax”), and each disposition imposing the said value-added tax in addition to the disposition imposing the value-added tax.

C. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of each of the instant dispositions with the Tax Tribunal. On May 16, 2016, the Tax Tribunal revoked the said disposition on the grounds that the instant disposition was unlawful as the instant disposition was served by public notice without satisfying the requirements for service by public notice. ② The instant disposition of global income tax was filed by the Plaintiff after the lapse of 90 days from the date the Plaintiff was duly served with the notice of disposition, and thus, dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds that the instant disposition of global income tax was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In around the end of 2009, while the Plaintiff was running a personal business under the name of AAbebbbball, the Plaintiff was demanded by a company under his name-based loan business operator to obtain a loan to a micro enterprise, and the Plaintiff sent the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, etc. using the Plaintiff’s express bus services. However, from April 5, 201 to October 2, 201, the Plaintiff was confined to the prison by using the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression and identification card. The Plaintiff issued each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the instant business, but the Plaintiff was not a person who received income or income from the instant business registration, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff, whose name was stolen.

Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case is null and void since there is a serious and clear defect.

3. Whether the plaintiff's action against the defendant AA director is legitimate

A. If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void, and it does not exist, and it merely covers an administrative disposition for which no lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity is filed on the revocation ex officio, or contests the validity of the past legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du5554, Jun. 12, 2008; 201Du16865, Jun. 28, 2012). However, the revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax of this case by the Tax Tribunal on May 16, 2016, which was pending in the lawsuit of this case, is the same as seen earlier, and thus, the part on the disposition imposing value-added tax of this case relating to the disposition of this case is subject to a nonexistent administrative disposition or is merely a dispute over the validity of the past legal relations.

B. On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) although the imposition of the value-added tax was revoked, Defendant AA head of the tax office may re-examine the imposition of the value-added tax after supplementing the procedure; and (b) the Tax Tribunal judged that the imposition of the global income tax of this case based on the above imposition of the value-added tax is still effective; (b) the Plaintiff still has a benefit to dispute the imposition of the value-added tax of this case; (c) however, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no benefit to dispute the imposition of the value-added tax of this case that is lost due to the circumstance that the former part of the AA head of the tax office is likely to re-examine the imposition of the value-added tax by supplementing the former part; and (d) if the new disposition of the global income tax of this case was made based on the data of the same content as the disposition of the value-added tax of this case, it is appropriate to claim the revocation or invalidation of the disposition of the global income tax of this case, as well as the fundamental solution to confirm the invalidity of the disposition of this case.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant AA director is unlawful.

4. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant AA director of the tax office

A. Legal doctrine

In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an unlawful ground for the disposition. The defect is an important violation of laws and regulations, objectively apparent, and it is necessary to reasonably consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which form the basis for the taxation disposition, as well as the characteristics of the specific case itself. From this point of view, a taxation disposition by a person who does not have any factual basis for the taxation disposition, is significant and apparent, but if it can only be identified only when the factual basis is examined on the legal relation or factual basis, which is not subject to taxation, which is not subject to taxation, because it is obvious that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and it cannot be deemed as a matter of course if it is proved that it is subject to taxation, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12634, Jun. 26, 1998).

B. Facts of recognition

1) On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Anam Police Station on charges of fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of an investigation document with respect to the instant application for business registration and report of business closure. However, on May 30, 2016, the Prosecutor of the Goyang District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a non-prosecution disposition with respect to the Mada on the grounds of no suspicion with respect to the Mada, and on February 26, 2016, the Prosecutor of the Goyang District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the South Korean Public Prosecutor’s Office.

2) According to the above investigation, the Minister of Justice asserted that the Postal Service and the Postal Service only made an application for the registration of business in order to obtain his own loan, and that the monthly rent contract issued in the course of the application or the application for the registration of business was forged, and that the male male was only the fact that the young male who had been living in the old time was making alcohol and tobacco and lent his/her identification card to him/her.

C. Determination

1) Even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, abused the name of the business operator, did not have any circumstance to deem that the instant business registration lacks the appearance of the business operator, or that there was any objectively suspected evidence of the establishment or authenticity of its content, the circumstances of misappropriation in the name of the Plaintiff is merely merely a circumstance that can only be clarified when investigating the facts accurately, and even if an administrative agency imposed a tax disposition on the basis of such circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the defect is apparent in appearance.

2) Furthermore, with respect to the process of the instant business registration, the Plaintiff sent his certificate of personal seal impression, identification card copy, etc. to his name-free persons using the Seoul High-speed Bus, and received KRW 12 million from his name-free persons after deducting the fee. However, the Plaintiff did not specifically explain the credit service provider’s information, submit documents related to the loan, or details of repayment, and did not clearly reveal whether the Plaintiff’s name was stolen through the prosecutor’s investigation. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s assertion clearly revealed.

3) Therefore, even if Defendant AA Head of the tax office erred by mistake of the Plaintiff as the actual business owner in the imposition of global income tax in this case as alleged by the Plaintiff, it can only be a ground for revocation of the said imposition, and it cannot be deemed as a case of grave and obvious defect, which is grounds for invalidation.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant AA director is dismissed as illegal, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant AA director is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.