Whether the notice of tax payment is invalid because it has no ground for taxation or is illegal to serve a notice of tax payment;

A disposition and a notice of tax payment imposed by data derived from the business partner’s tax investigation are lawful, and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disposition of public auction is to be filed with the defendant, so it is unlawful against the director of the tax office who is not eligible for the defendant

1. The part of the lawsuit in this case against which the confirmation of invalidity of the public auction disposition is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

1. On January 18, 1999, the Defendant imposed value-added tax of 500,00 won for the second term of 1994, value-added tax of 1,225,410 won for the first term of 1995, value-added tax of 2,369,420 won for the second term of 195, value-added tax of 2,369,420 won for the second term of 195, and value-added tax of 4,589,830 won for the first term of 1996, and the imposition disposition of 11,295,150 won for the global income tax of 200.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,589,830 won with 5% interest per annum from October 11, 1999 to the date of full payment.

3. On April 11, 2001, the Defendant confirmed that ○○-dong 4, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, 00, and 4, 996-1, 346 square meters and 4, 996-7 square meters and 527 square meters are null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 196, 1996, the Defendant: (a) obtained false purchase tax invoices issued at ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○○○○○○”) as evidentiary materials to verify the fact that the input tax amount was deducted; (b) received a written confirmation from the Plaintiff that the input tax amount was actually deducted by using the false tax invoices received at ○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 1994, 12,254, 114 in 195, 23,694, 224, 195, 4,950, 196, total amount of KRW 45,89,338,00 from the date of operating the Plaintiff’s goods; and (c) received a written confirmation from the Plaintiff, without receiving the tax invoices from the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s report on sales of KRW 45,898,338 in total from February 1994 to January 1, 1996; and (b) on January 18, 1998, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 50,00,00 of value-added tax for the second term of 1994, KRW 1,225,410 of value-added tax for the first term of 1995, KRW 2,369,420 for the second term of 195, KRW 49,420 for the second term of 195, KRW 49,830 for the first term of 196, KRW 49,830 for the first term of 195, KRW 32,680 for the omission of sales in the year 195, KRW 300 for the Plaintiff’s global income to revert the Plaintiff’s global income tax year 198.

C. Meanwhile, on November 1, 1998, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 108,810 (the 103,630 + additional dues of KRW 5,180) on global income tax for interim prepayment in November 1, 1998 (the 3'), and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 905,930, value-added tax for the second period of December 1999 (the 4'') (the 4'').

D. The Plaintiff paid all the value-added tax of this case by October 11, 1999. However, on March 27, 2000, the Plaintiff failed to pay the value-added tax of 10,400,720 won remaining after being appropriated for the national tax refund among the instant disposition No. 2, and on March 27, 200, the Defendant: (a) requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to sell a public sale of the said real estate on June 5, 200 on the following grounds: (b) the Plaintiff’s ○○○-dong 4, 00,000 and the value-added tax of 4 of the instant disposition; (c) the Defendant: (d) on March 27, 200, imposed the attachment of 96-1,346§³ and 4 of the same volume as the Plaintiff’s 996-7 size and 527 size of the instant real estate (as stated in the written request for public sale agency, the Plaintiff appears to have claimed the remainder of KRW 1051,51,201,201.

E. On April 11, 2001, the Korea Asset Management Corporation: (a) issued a public auction disposition to sell the above real estate to ○○○; (b) on May 10 of the same year, ○○○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant public auction disposition with respect to the above real estate; (c) on May 11, 2001, the Defendant appropriated KRW 13,792,830, allocated in the above public auction procedure as of May 11, 2001, for the remaining global income tax of KRW 12,67,950 (this tax + KRW 10,400,720 + additional dues KRW 2,267,230) and for the value-added tax of KRW 1,124,80 (this tax + KRW 905,830,219,050).

(f) Results of the relevant lawsuit

(1) The lawsuit seeking confirmation of the revocation or invalidity of the First, Second, Disposition of this case

㈎ 원고는 피고를 상대로 ○○지방법원 2002구합8475호로 이 사건 제1,2처분의 취소 내지 무효확인을 선택적으로 구하는 소를 제기하였으나, 같은 법원은 2003. 6. 27. 적법한 전치절차를 거치지 아니하여 부적법하다는 이유로 위 부과처분의 취소청구에 관한 소를 각하하고, 피고가 위 부과처분의 근거로 삼은 ○○기공 작성한 확인서가 허위라는 점을 인정할 증거가 부족하다는 이유로 위 부과처분의 무효확인청구를 기각하였다.

㈏ 원고가 항소한 ○○고등법원 2003누1104호 사건에서, 같은 법원은 2004. 2. 6. ① 부과처분의 취소를 구하는 소는 제1심 판결과 같은 이유로 각하하고, ② 이 사건 제1처분에 대한 무효확인을 구하는 소는, 원고가 1999. 10. 11.까지 위 부가가치세를 모두 완납하였으므로, 당해 부과처분이 무효라면 민사소송으로서 그 납부세액에 상당하는 부당이득의 반환을 구하는 것이 직접적인 권리구제의 방법이고 행정소송으로서 부과처분의 무효확인을 구하는 것은 분쟁해결에 직접적이고 유효적절한 방법이라 할 수 없어 소의 이익이 없다는 이유로 각하하고, ③ 이 사건 제2처분에 대한 무효확인을 구하는 청구는 제1심 판결과 같은 이유로 이를 기각하는 내용의 판결을 선고하였고, 이에 원고가 상고한 대법원 2004두3571호 사건에서, 같은 법원은 2004. 5. 17. 상고기각판결을 선고하였다.

㈐ 그 후 원고는 ○○지방법원 2005구합4313호로 동대구세무서장을 상대로 이 사건 제1, 2처분의 무효확인을 구하는 소를 제기하였으나, 같은 법원은 이 사건 제2처분에 관하여 2006. 10. 18. 원고는 1999. 10. 11.까지 이 사건 부가가치세를 모두 완납하였으므로, 이와 같은 경우 당해 부과처분이 무효라면, 민사소송으로서 그 납부세액에 상당하는 부당이득의 반환을 구하여야 할 것이므로 소의 이익이 없다는 이유로 각하하였고, 이에 원고가 항소한 ○○고등법원 2006누2238호 사건에서 같은 법원은 2007. 6. 22. 대구고등법원 2003누1104호 및 그 상고심인 대법원 2004두3571호 사건에서 이 사건 제2처분에 대한 무효확인의 소를 각하하는 내용의 원고 패소판결이 확정되었으며, 원고는 위 패소판결이 확정된 후 그와 당사자 및 소송물이 동일한 위 부과처분의 무효확인을 구하는 소를 다시 제기하였으므로, 확정판결의 기판력이 후소에 미쳐 확정판결과 모순되는 판단을 할 수 없다는 이유로 원고의 항소를 기각하였고, 그 후 원고가 제기한 상소심인 대법원 2007두15711호 사건에서, 같은 법원은 상고기각판결을 선고하였다.

(2) A lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment and nullification of the instant public sale disposition

㈎ 원고는 ○○지방법원 2003가단81413호로 대한민국을 상대로 부당이득금반환을, 한국자산관리공사를 상대로 공매처분의 무효확인을 구하는 소를 각각 제기하였으나, 같은 법원은 2004. 6. 24. 공매처분에 의하여 제3자 앞으로 마쳐진 소유권이전등기의 말소를 구할 수 있으므로 공매처분에 대하여 소송으로 무효확인을 구하는 것은 분쟁해결에 직접적이고도 유효 · 적절한 방법이라 할 수 없어 소의 이익이 없다는 이유로 소 각하 판결을 하였고, 부당이득반환청구 중 이 사건 제4처분은 납세고지서가 원고에게 적법하게 송달되지 아니하였으므로 그 하자가 중대하고 명백하여 무효이고 따라서 대한민국이 위 공매절차에서 배분받은 1999년도 2기분 부가가치세 1,124,800원을 부당이득으로 원고에게 반환할 의무가 있다고 하였으나, 원고의 이 사건 제1, 2처분으로 인한 부당이득금반환청구에 대하여는 위 각 처분이 허위의 확인서에 기해 이루어졌음을 인정할 증거가 부족하고 위 각 처분 당시 각 납세고지서 또한 원고에게 적법하게 송달되었음을 이유로 이를 기각하는 판결을 선고하였다(피고는 위 부당이득금반환청구소송에서의 패소판결에 따라 2004. 7. 28. 이사건 제4처분을 직권으로 취소하는 결정을 하였고, 같은 해 8. 3. 공매대금으로 충당하였던 체납세금 1,124,880원과 환급가산금 198,310원의 환급을 결정하였으며, 같은 해 8. 4. 원고의 계좌로 위 각 돈을 입금하여 환급처리를 마쳤다).

㈏ 원고가 항소한 ○○지방법원 2004나8669호 사건에서, 같은 법원은 2004. 10. 27. 제1심 판결과 같은 이유로 원고의 항소를 기각하는 판결을 선고하였고, 이에 불복하여 원고가 상고한 대법원 2004다64814호 사건에서, 같은 법원은 2005. 1. 14. 상고기각판결을 선고하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 13-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon the Plaintiff’s notice from the Defendant, KRW 4,589,830 and KRW 11,295,150 are to be borne by the Defendant’s original ○○ Official. Nevertheless, the Defendant imposed value-added tax and comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff without any basis of taxation. In addition, the Defendant did not deliver to the Plaintiff a tax notice, demand notice, notification of attachment, etc. regarding the imposition and disposition of global income tax and value-added tax on the instant global income tax, and the instant disposition of imposition of global income tax and value-added tax on the instant global income tax and the instant

B. The Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 4,589,830, which was received on the basis of the first disposition of this case, which is null and void as a matter of course.

C. In addition, a public auction disposition based on an invalid global income tax disposition is also null and void as a matter of course.

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

A. The part on the claim for nullification of the First and Second Dispositions in this case

(1) In a case where the existence of a right or legal relation disputed in a lawsuit has already been disputed and a final and conclusive judgment thereon has been rendered between the same parties, the parties cannot make any allegations that conflict with this, and the court may not make any judgment that conflict with this, and as such, the existence of a final and conclusive judgment is a matter to be ex officio investigation, and the court shall not ex officio investigate and determine it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du1027, Oct. 13, 2006).

According to Luxembourg, in the case of ○○○ High Court No. 2003Nu1104, and Supreme Court No. 2004Du3571, which is the final appeal of this case, the plaintiff's lawsuit of nullification of the first disposition of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of losing the plaintiff is finalized, and thereafter, in the case of ○○ High Court No. 2006Nu2238, and Supreme Court No. 2007Du15711, which is the final appeal of this case, the plaintiff's claim of nullification of the first and second disposition of this case can be recognized as final and conclusive. Since the plaintiff and the parties of this case have filed a new lawsuit of this case seeking nullification of the same disposition of this case after the judgment of loss became final and conclusive, the plaintiff's claim against this part cannot be judged inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment because the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment is not consistent with the final and conclusive judgment without any further reasons.

B. Part of the monetary claim

The head of the tax office like the defendant is merely the administrative agency in charge of the imposition and collection of value-added tax, and the subject of the duty to return value-added tax and the subject of the duty to return the invalid value-added tax are the state, so the plaintiff's lawsuit should be filed against the state, which is the subject of rights and obligations. However, this part of the lawsuit filed against the defendant, which is merely the administrative agency in charge of the imposition and collection of value-added tax, is unlawful (On the other hand, in a case where the plaintiff files a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment against the defendant, who is merely the administrative agency in charge of the imposition and collection of value-added tax, the court must exercise the right of explanation and proceed with the lawsuit by correcting the defendant to the Republic of Korea, but the court has already filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the Republic of Korea, and the fact that the judgment has become final and conclusive, and thus the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed without undergoing the procedure

C. Part on the claim for nullification of the public auction disposition

(1) The public sale of the property in arrears by the Korea Asset Management Corporation shall be deemed to be by the delegation of the authority of the director of the tax office for the public sale. As such, in filing an appeal against the revocation, etc. of the public sale disposition conducted by the same Corporation, the delegated authority shall be the same construction that it actually conducted as the delegated authority, and the head of the tax office, the delegated authority, shall not be the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1757 delivered on February 2

According to the Luxembourg, on March 27, 200, the Defendant issued a disposition of seizure on the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in payment of national taxes, and requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to sell the said real estate on April 11, 2001. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of invalidation of the disposition of public sale against the Defendant is unlawful as the Plaintiff’s standing is not allowed (On the other hand, in a case where the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of public sale against the head of a tax office who is not allowed to be the Defendant due to the mistake in designating the Defendant as to the disposition of public sale conducted by the Korea Asset Management Corporation upon delegation by the head of a tax office, the court shall exercise the right of explanation, and proceed the lawsuit by correcting the Defendant as the Korea Asset Management Corporation, but the Plaintiff had already filed a lawsuit against the Korea Asset Management Corporation seeking nullification of the disposition of public sale of this case, and the judgment became final and conclusive. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed without undergoing the procedure of correction of the Defendant).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim and the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of public auction are dismissed as unlawful, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.