재결취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of ruling;
A. Although the head of the Suwon Tax Office notified each of the corporate tax for the year 2013, the second half-year value-added tax for the year 2013, and the first half-year value-added tax for the year 2014 to Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), the Nonparty Company did not pay the said corporate tax and value-added tax.
Accordingly, the head of the Suwon Tax Office designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer on the ground that the Plaintiff is in the status of oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company and sent the notice to the Plaintiff
(hereinafter referred to as “instant tax imposition disposition” in accordance with the above notice. (b)
On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition of imposing tax, and filed a request for a tax trial on March 7, 2016, and the Defendant, on April 25, 2016, filed a request for a trial on March 7, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days from June 19, 2015, on which the date when the Plaintiff received a notice of payment of the secondary tax liability, and filed a request for a trial on March 7, 2016 to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the ground that the request for a trial is unlawful (hereinafter “instant ruling”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The defendant's objection to the violation of jurisdiction against the defendant, "The revocation lawsuit against the defendant, a central administrative agency, may be brought to the administrative court having jurisdiction over the seat of the Supreme Court in the case of filing a revocation lawsuit against the defendant falling under any of the following subparagraphs, notwithstanding Article 9 (2) and Article 9 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.
However, the territorial jurisdiction stipulated in Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act is not exclusive jurisdiction but discretionary jurisdiction, and Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1865 delivered on January 25, 199.