Article 15 (Violation of Obligations to Issue Cash Receipts)

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 44,820,448 and interest thereon from July 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

It shall pay 15% of the amount with 15% interest.

A. The Plaintiff operated a specialized driving school in aaa City B. B. c. c. c. c.

B. On June 30, 2016, the head of d tax office, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the obligation to issue cash receipts from October 1, 2013, imposed a fine for negligence equivalent to 56,025,560 won equivalent to 50/100 of the transaction amount for which cash receipts have not been issued under Article 162-3 of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was in violation of the obligation to issue cash receipts, and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of the fine for negligence (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition imposing the fine for negligence”).

C. On July 20, 2016, without presenting separate opinions, the Plaintiff paid KRW 44,820,448,000 upon the imposition of the instant administrative fine.

D. On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the disposition of imposition of the instant fine for negligence against the director of the District Tax Office.

On November 9, 2016, the director of d tax office rendered a decision to dismiss the above objection to the Plaintiff.

E. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the decision to dismiss the said objection. However, on June 1, 2017, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the instant disposition of fines for negligence does not fall under the object of objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the Plaintiff filed an appeal after the lapse of 90 days from November 15, 2016 upon receipt of the said decision to dismiss the said objection.

【Legal Grounds for Recognition: Each entry in the Evidence of Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Relevant statutes;

The statutes related to this case shall be as specified in the attached statutes.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Issuance of Cash Receipts under the Income Tax Act shall provide services and receive the price in cash.

If services are not yet provided due to cash receipt receipt, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to issue cash receipts arises unless the services are provided. However, since the Plaintiff’s curriculum is divided into three curriculums, the Plaintiff’s driving school shall calculate the transaction amount corresponding to the object of cash receipt issuance under the Income Tax Act, and the time of issuing cash receipts is determined by each curriculum. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff received tuition fees for the three curriculum from the students, it is merely a deposit of the amount to be paid in advance, without considering the distinction between the time of providing the above services and the curriculum, the Plaintiff’s imposition of the administrative fine in this case is unlawful, and it is objectively null and void because the defect is objectively obvious that the defect violated the laws and regulations.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the administrative fine paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

(2) the Corporation.

B. Determination

If it is a preliminary question as to the invalidity of an administrative disposition in a civil action, it shall be such a preliminary question.

A judgment can be rendered on the premise that an administrative disposition is void a year (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da90092, Apr. 8, 2010). In order to ensure that an administrative disposition is null and void a year, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient. The defect is a serious violation of a statute and is objectively obvious. In determining whether a defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant statute should be examined from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995).

On the other hand, as to any legal or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, this household

In a case where there is an objective reason to believe that it is different, if it is possible to clarify whether it is subject to taxation accurately, it cannot be deemed that it is apparent even if it is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition of unlawful act that misleads the fact of taxation is void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu1210, Jul. 11, 1989; 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). It is reasonable to view that it is equally applicable to the disposition of imposition of the administrative fine of this case imposed under the Income Tax Act and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the disposition of the fine for negligence of this case constitutes the invalidity of the disposition.

In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the above basic facts and the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as well as the overall purport of oral argument, the head of d tax office may determine that the Plaintiff’s imposition of the fine for negligence can only be deemed null and void on the ground that there exists an objective circumstance to determine that the Plaintiff’s total amount of transactions without cash receipt reaches KRW 112,051,120, and that the scope of accurate imposition of the fine for negligence cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s provision of services exceeding the amount of transactions under each subparagraph of Article 162-3(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and Article 162-3(4) of the Income Tax Act between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014.

1. From March 25, 2016 to May 3, 2016, the d tax base for the Plaintiff is the global income tax base.

In the process, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of omission of the revenue amount and submitted a d tax secretary document. In addition, the Plaintiff raised an objection as stated in paragraph (d) of the said basic fact only with a requirement to additionally recognize some necessary expenses for the amount omitted in accordance with the above certificate, and did not raise an objection to the scale of omitted revenue.

2. The d Customs Duties, which omits to issue cash receipts on the basis of the above written confirmation submitted by the Plaintiff.

In the process of confirming the scale of cash transactions, it is confirmed that the transaction amount per case is more than the amount stipulated in Article 162-3 (4) of the former Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Act on the basis of computerized data prepared by the date, types of tuition fees, cash transactions, receipt amount, and supply value from students, and then, it is deemed that the fine for negligence is imposed only on the transaction for which cash receipts have not been issued among each cash transaction more than the amount

③ The Plaintiff issued cash receipts to some students, such as e, according to the same content and standard as the computerized data used when calculating the transaction amount subject to an administrative fine.

④ The Plaintiff shall impose the fine for negligence under Article 16 of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Violations of Public Order.

Without submitting opinions or raising an objection under Article 20 of the same Act, a prior payment administrative fine according to the disposition of the administrative fine of this case was voluntarily paid.

(5) The National Tax Service shall make a date and time to make an inquiry about the obligation to issue cash receipts to a private teaching institute.

In the case of receiving cash receipts, it takes the position that “the determination of the trade amount subject to the obligation to issue cash receipts shall be made on the basis of the paid amount,” and as to the time of issuing cash receipts, cash receipts shall be issued when the price is paid in cash, and where receipts are issued for the price received prior to the arrival of the time of supply, it shall be deemed that the time of the issuance is the time of the delivery.” Therefore, it is difficult to deem

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the disposition of fine for negligence in this case is null and void as a matter of course is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.