Where there are objective reasons to believe that a disposition of taxation is subject to taxation, the relevant disposition of taxation shall not be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and the factual relations can only be clarified by accurately investigating whether they are subject to taxation, the taxation disposition under the above Act, which misleads the fact of taxation, cannot be deemed as null and void as it is impossible to make it apparent even if the defect is serious.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Guhap1034 Invalidity, etc. of the imposition of value-added tax

Park AA

2 others than the Head of Leecheon Tax Office

April 13, 2012

June 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The imposition of the global income tax for the second period of December 1, 2005 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2005, and for the first period of December 15, 2008, value-added tax for the first period of December 15, 2002, and for the second period of January 1, 2004, value-added tax for the second period of January 1, 2002, and for the first period of September 6, 2003 on September 6, 2003 is null and void. The imposition of the global income tax for the plaintiff on August 6, 2004 is confirmed to be null and void. The imposition of the global income tax for the plaintiff on May 8, 2007, and for each of the imposition of the global income tax for the second period of September 2008, each of the imposition of the global income tax for the plaintiff on December 2008. The imposition of each of the imposition of the global income tax for the plaintiff is confirmed to be null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 20, 2001 to November 30, 2003, the Plaintiff is a person registered as a business operator with the trade name called "BB company" from 00 to 00 of O200 in Mapo-Eup in Mapo-si in Gwangju City. However, the Plaintiff made a new tax base of the value-added tax and global income tax for the above taxable period, but did not pay the said taxes to the Defendants. ① The head of Echeon-gu Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the tax base of the value-added tax and global income tax for the second taxable period from 2001 to 00 won, and the first taxable period of 1.202 to 15, 2002, and the second taxable period of 200 to 202, and the second taxable period of 200 to 200 to 200 to 30.40 to 208 to 200 to 200 to 300 to 200 to .208.

③ On May 8, 2007, the chief of the defendant's tax office notified the plaintiff of the payment of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2001, and KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case").

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the dispositions of this case without going through a request for review or an inquiry agency, which is a procedure for the preceding trial under Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the plaintiff's lawsuit should be dismissed in violation of law. However, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a taxation exists as an external administrative act, and it is merely a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disposition which has no legal effect from the beginning, and it is merely a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disposition which has no legal effect, and unlike a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation or a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant business establishment is operated after KimCC used the Plaintiff’s name in misappropriation and completed business registration, and the Plaintiff did not have any part in the instant business. Therefore, the instant disposition is a tax assessment imposed on the Plaintiff, which is merely a business owner under the name of the Plaintiff, and is null and void in violation of the principle

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Under the principle of substantial taxation, taxpayers should be determined by legal substance, not external appearance. Therefore, if the title of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such title belongs, the actual person to whom the transaction belongs, but it is merely nominal, and there is a burden to prove that there is another person to whom the transaction is actually attributed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984). Based on the above legal principle, the Plaintiff’s testimony from KimCC was insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s business owner’s name using the above title of 2 and 3, and ParkD’s testimony from 0,000, and there were no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff’s 20,000 and 20,0000, 30,0000, 30,0000,000 won and 2,000,000 won or more, and 2,0.

(2) In a case where objective reasons exist to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and it can only be identified whether they are subject to taxation accurately, even if the defects are serious, it cannot be said that the above taxation disposition of the above law, which misleads the fact requiring taxation, cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) whether the actual business owner of the pertinent workplace was determined in the operation of the business, and who is attributed to anyone, can only be found to have been investigated in detail, such as whether the decision was made in the operation of the business, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax return of value-added tax and global income tax were neither involved nor participated in the process, and it cannot be deemed null and void even if the Plaintiff did not appear in the name of the Defendant.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is without merit, and it is decided as to all of the claims and orders.