Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap816 (No. 11, 2011)

The plaintiff may not admit that the plaintiff is not a real business operator

The construction of this case is registered in the name of the Plaintiff, and only part of the money transferred by the Plaintiff from the contractor was remitted to another person, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the payment of the remainder of the construction work in the name of the Plaintiff, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Nu3111. Revocation of notice of global income tax

Appellant and Appellant

XX Kim

- Appellants

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap816 Decided August 11, 2011

April 18, 2012

May 16, 2012

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit falling under the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. One half of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009, and the Defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of 000 won on September 1, 2010 by the defendant against the plaintiff on September 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the following cases: (a) the 4th or lower portion of the decision of the court of first instance is used again; and (b) the reasoning of the decision of the court of first instance is as follows.

【Discied Part】

3. Whether the disposition of value-added tax in this case is legitimate

ex officio, the instant lawsuit pertains to the lawfulness of the disposition imposing value-added tax.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition is no longer effective and no longer exists, and the revocation lawsuit against the non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, and according to the written evidence Nos. 18 and 19, it can be acknowledged that the defendant ex officio revoked the disposition of the value-added tax of this case against the plaintiff on April 12, 2012. Thus, among the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking revocation of the above disposition of the value-added tax of this case is about the non- extinguished disposition and thus, it becomes illegal as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in entirety, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked and the lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.