명의대여사실 인정여부[각하]
Whether the name name name is recognized or not.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had gone through the procedure of the previous trial on the instant disposition by the date of closing the argument of the instant case. Thus, the instant lawsuit without going through the necessary procedure of the previous trial is unlawful.
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Seoul Administrative Court 2018Guhap7303 Value-Added Tax, Employment Income, and Revocation of Disposition
*
Head of Seocho Tax Office
oly 28, 2019
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s disposition of collecting KRW 2,285,150 for the first term of September 2, 2014, and KRW 4,803,350 for the first term of September 4, 2015, and KRW 4,803,350 for the first term of September 4, 2015, and KRW 21,960 for the employment income accrued in June 3, 2015, as of September 3, 2015, and ④ the collection of KRW 21,980 for the employment income accrued in July 7, 2015, is revoked, respectively.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From November 11, 2013 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was the representative of the Scandn C&C (hereinafter “Sus”) who runs a construction business.
B. In relation to the value-added tax and the pro rata earned income tax that was not paid by the Plaintiff after filing a return, the Defendant, on September 2, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 2,285,150, value-added tax for the first period of September 2, 2015, value-added tax of KRW 4,803,350, value-added tax for the first period of September 4, 2015, KRW 21,960, and KRW 21,980, as of September 3, 2015, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The defendant's assertion
The lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it was filed without going through the procedure of pre-trial examination, request for adjudication, etc. under the Framework Act.
B. Determination
According to Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where an administrative litigation is instituted against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts, prior trial procedures, such as a request for examination or adjudgment, as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, are necessarily required. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates the National Tax as one of the tax-related Acts. The instant disposition constitutes a disposition of collection under the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, the person dissatisfied therewith should undergo prior
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had gone through the procedure of a prior trial, such as a request for examination or a request for trial, with respect to the disposition of this case until the closing date of the argument in this case, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it and it is so decided as per Disposition.