Article 7 (Application for Registration and Delivery of Registration Certificate)

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Evidence Nos. 1 through 40 (including paper numbers), each entry of evidence Nos. 44 through 46, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. From February 21, 1992, the Plaintiff ○○○ opened and operated the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on February 21, 1995, and operated the garmentmentary

B. Meanwhile, on the second floor of the building ○○○○○○○○○ was established and operated as a discount store for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, from February 25, 195, and from May 1, 1996, in the building located at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was established and operated. However, the ○○○○○○○○ was registered under the name of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○ (the wife, who

C. On October 290 and November 2000, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the business performance, etc. for five years from 1995 to 2000 with respect to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, where the name of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ was registered as the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was determined as the Plaintiff. On December 29, 2000, the Defendant corrected the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in

D. On January 2, 2001, the Defendant issued a decision to impose the Plaintiff’s total amount of value-added tax on the business of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing the value-added tax”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total amount of the input tax was deducted more than the actual amount of the value-added tax, and that the value-added tax was not paid within the statutory period, the Plaintiff’s total amount of the value-added tax for the first term portion of 1998, which was KRW 120,00,000, KRW 108,000, KRW 180, KRW 22,486,940, and KRW 62,940 for the second term portion of the value-added tax in 199 (hereinafter “the instant disposition imposing the value-added tax”). At the same time, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff’s total amount of the Plaintiff’s income generated from the business of ○○○○○○○ on the ground that:

F. On October 23, 2001, Plaintiff ○○○ filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition on imposition of value-added tax and the instant global income and disposition. On November 28, 2002, the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 59,876,913 in the imposition disposition of KRW 62,486,940 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2001, exceeding KRW 59,876,90 in the imposition disposition of KRW 62,96,940 against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.” (○○ District Court Decision 000,000) that “The remainder of the claim of Plaintiff ○○○○○○○ was dismissed, but the Plaintiff ○○ appealed appealed on April 16, 200 (Supreme Court Decision 200, Apr. 28, 2005).

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. On the premise that the plaintiffs' correction of business registration of this case constitutes an administrative disposition, the defendant is arguing that the correction of business registration of this case is not an administrative disposition.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the correction of business registration of this case constitutes an administrative disposition.

(1) 부가가치세법상의 사업자등록은 관세관청으로 하여금 부가가치세의 납세의무자를 파악하고 그 과세자료를 확보케 하려는 데 입법취지가 있는 것으로서, 이는 단순한 사업사실의 신고로서 사업자가 소관 세무서장에게 소정의 사업자등록신청서를 제출함으로써 성립되는 것이고, 사업자등록증의 교부는 이와 같은 등록사실을 증명하는 증서의 교부행위에 불과한 것이며, 부가가치세법 제5조 제5항에 의하면 사업자가 폐업하거나 또는 신규로 사업을 개시하고자 하여 사업개시일 전에 등록한 후 사실상 사업을 개시하지 아니하게 돠는 때에는 과세관청이 직권으로 이를 말소하도록 하고 있는데, 사업자등록의 말소 또한 폐업사실의 기재일 뿐 그에 의하여 사업자로서의 지위에 변동을 가져오는 것이 아니라는 점에서 과세관청의 사업자등록 직권말소행위는 불복의 대상이 되는 행정처분으로 볼 수가 없다(대법원 2000.12.22. 선고 99두6903 판결 참조).

(2) The Defendant’s act of correcting the name of the representative of the business registration from the Plaintiff ○○○ to the Plaintiff ○○○○○ on the ground that the Defendant’s act of operating the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○ in fact constitutes an act of cancelling the business registration ex officio pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that the Plaintiff ○○○○○ did not actually commence the business after the business registration. At the same time, the Plaintiff ○○○○ constitutes an act of cancelling the business registration ex officio pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 7(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that the Defendant’s act of cancelling the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○’s business registration with respect to the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○’s business and making the business registration under the Plaintiff ○○○○

(3) Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking nullification of the instant correction of business registration is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

The Administrative Litigation Act

Article 2 Section (1) Definitions of terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "dispositions, etc." means the exercises or refusal of public power, and other corresponding administrative actions (hereinafter referred to as "dispositions") and rulings on administrative appeals by administrative agencies with respect to specific facts;

Article 3 The administrative litigation shall be classified into the following four categories:

1. An appeal litigation: A lawsuit filed against a disposition, etc. or omission by an administrative agency;

The Value-Added Tax Act

Article 5 (Registration(1) A person who newly starts a business, but is not a unit taxable business operator, shall register the business operator's head office or principal office with the head office of the business place within 20 days from the date of commencing the business under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That a person who intends to start a new business may register it even before the date of commencing

(2) The chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the business place shall deliver a registration certificate assigned with a registration number (hereinafter referred to as a “business registration certificate”) to the business registered under paragraph (1).

(3) and (3)

(4) When the businessman who has registered under paragraph (1) suspends or closes his business, or changes registered matters, he shall report without delay to the chief of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the business place under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The same shall apply to the case where any person who

(5) When the businessman closes down or fails to start the business in fact after making a registration under the proviso of paragraph (1), the chief of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the business place shall cancel

(6) The superintendent of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the business place may, if deemed necessary, reissue the business registration certificate.

The Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

7. Application for registration and issuance of registration certificate

(4) Where a businessman fails to make registration under Article 5 (1) of the Act, the head of competent tax office may investigate and make registration.

Article 11 (Correction) If a business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall submit without delay a business operator's personal information, a report on correction of business registration stating matters to be corrected and other necessary matters to the head of the competent district tax office along with a business registration certificate and a drawing of the leased part of the relevant part of the commercial building (limited to cases falling under subparagraph 8, where the object or area of lease is changed or part of the commercial building under Article 2 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is newly leased): Provided, That subparagraph 8 shall apply only where the lessee of the commercial building under Article 2 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act intends to report on correction of business registration:

1. Where the trade name is changed;

2. Deleted;

3. When the representative of a corporation or an organization other than such an organization deemed a corporation under Article 13 (1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is replaced by that prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry

4. Where any change occurs in the type of business;

5. When the workplace (excluding any subordinate workplace if approval for a business unit taxation is obtained) is relocated;

6. Where the entrepreneur’s name is changed due to inheritance;

7. When the members or equity shares of joint businessmen are changed.

8. When a lessor, leasehold object, size of the leased object, deposit, rent or lease term is changed, or a new commercial building is leased;

9. Where a person who has obtained approval for an entrepreneur-unit taxation under Article 6-3 (3) relocates or alters a place of business subject to application of an entrepreneur-unit taxation;

(2) The director of the tax office shall, upon receiving the report under paragraph (1), reissue it by confirming the contents of correction within the following periods, and correcting the entries on the business

1. In cases falling under paragraph (1) 4, 5, 7, or 9: Within seven days from the date of application;

2. In other cases, within two days from the date of application.

(3) and (3)

(4) The head of the competent district tax office having received a report of correction of business registration due to the causes as referred to in paragraph (1) 5 and 9 shall notify without delay the fact of relocation or change of business place

When cancelling registration under Article 12 (5) of the Cancellation of Registration Act, the chief of the competent tax office shall collect without delay the registration certificate, and where it is impossible to collect it, he shall publicly announce the fact of cancellation of registration.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23538 (No. 28, 2008)]

Judgment not to proceed with hearing