The early high-2015-China-0563

Whether the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator under the name of the Plaintiff

The collection disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the ground alleged by the plaintiff alone does not constitute a defect to the extent that the Plaintiff’s return of each value-added tax is null and void.

Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap51570 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

2015.09.10

oly 22, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 9, 2011 to October 31, 2014, the date of closedown, the Plaintiff engaged in construction business under the trade name “CC” in Gyeyang-dong, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu.

B. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax of KRW 10,818,046 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2013. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a return on KRW 31,336,197 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2014, but did not pay it.

C. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 10,944,610 for the second term value-added tax for the year 2013, and KRW 31,702,830 for the first term value-added tax for the year 2014 on September 11, 2014.

D. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not continue to pay the value-added tax, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the total sum of 45,355,310 of the value-added tax (hereinafter “instant collection disposition”).

E. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that the pertinent collection disposition was merely a collection procedure to collect the tax amount finalized on March 17, 2015, and thus, the Tax Tribunal rejected the petition for a trial on the grounds that the pertinent collection disposition was not subject to a disposition for appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including the number of evidence No. 3), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

The Defendant asserts that the instant collection disposition is unlawful since it is merely a collection procedure and is not a taxation subject to a revocation lawsuit, and that the instant disposition seeking revocation of the instant collection disposition is not unlawful.

The obligation to pay taxes that adopt the method of tax payment is confirmed by the taxpayer’s declaration, but it can be asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful solely on the ground that the instant disposition is not subject to an appeal suit for the reason that it is not subject to a disposition of tax payment, or that the instant disposition is not subject to an appeal suit for the reason that it is not subject to an appeal suit for the reason that it is not subject to a disposition of tax payment, or that the instant disposition is dismissed due to the reason that the instant disposition of tax payment is not subject to an appeal suit for the reason that it is not subject to an appeal suit for the reason that it is not subject to a disposition of tax payment, or that the instant disposition is dismissed due to such reason.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the collection disposition of this case is unlawful since he merely lent his name to D, a third village, and did not actually allow D to conduct construction business.

B. Determination

1) In the case of value-added tax that adopts the method of filing a tax return, the tax authority is deemed to have determined the liability to pay value-added tax by filing a taxpayer’s return, and becomes a collection disposition ordering the performance thereof, even if there is a defect in the taxpayer’s return act, the tax authority does not succeed as it is to the collection disposition, which is a subsequent disposition, unless the defect falls under grounds for invalidation, such as where the defect was done without any legal basis and rationality that is objectively reasonable, such as the case where the defect was done without any legal basis and rationality (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du14394, Sept. 8, 2006; 2013Du19066, Feb. 13, 2014).

2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff did not make any assertion and proof as to the unique grounds for illegality of the instant collection disposition, and comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including the serial number), the Plaintiff filed an application for business registration directly and filed each of the instant value-added tax assessment during each of the instant tax periods, and the Plaintiff submitted the power of delegation in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of filing the report of business closure. As such, in full view of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed as having defects to the extent that the Plaintiff’s grounds for invalidation of each of the instant collection disposition cannot be seen as unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.