재결취소
1. On April 25, 2016, the defendant revoked the ruling of rejection against the plaintiff on April 25, 2016.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Details of the disposition
The head of the Suwon Tax Office notified each of the corporate tax for the business year 2013, the second-year value-added tax for the business year 2013, and the first-year value-added tax for the business year 2014 to the Co., Ltd., but the non-party company did not pay the above corporate tax and value-added tax.
Therefore, 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.
On December 14, 2015, the head of the Suwon Tax Office sent a peremptory notice to the Plaintiff, and at that time the notice was served on the Plaintiff.
On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the disposition of the head of the Suwon Tax Office and filed a request for a tax trial on March 7, 2016. The Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the ground that the request for a trial was unlawful on the ground that the request for a trial was filed on April 25, 2016, which was the date when the Plaintiff received a notice of payment of secondary tax liability, from June 19, 2015 to June 90, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant decision of rejection”) / [Grounds for recognition / [Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act] The Plaintiff asserts that on June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the notice of payment of secondary tax liability was served on the Plaintiff, and that there was a disposition issued by the head of the competent tax office on December 14, 2015. Thus, the Defendant is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, the rejection of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff's appeal was filed after the lapse of the period of appeal is unlawful.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.