Whether there is no tax liability in relation to the tax assessment imposed on the income equivalent to the initial lease amount returned by the Plaintiff to the cemetery owners.

Since global income tax and value-added tax belong to the State, the primary claim against the Defendant for the confirmation of existence of tax liability is unlawful, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had undergone such a prior trial procedure within a legitimate period. Therefore, the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2018Guhap10748 global income and revocation of disposition

JAA

The head of a tax office

September 18, 2018

November 13, 2018

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

(1) Of global income tax amounting to KRW 115,80,802,380, of global income tax amounting to KRW 13,686,00, of global income tax for the year 2006, and global income tax for the year 2007, KRW 20,526,00 of global income tax for the year 209, and KRW 25,080,450 of global income tax for the year 2009, KRW 2,828,00,00 of global income tax for the year 209, KRW 37,369,290 of global income tax for the year 2010, KRW 4,235,000 of global income tax for the year 206, KRW 45,81,000 of global income tax for the year 206, KRW 5,0000 of global income tax for the year 209, KRW 36,008, KRW 2097, KRW 2096,3009.

Preliminaryly, on September 1, 2011, the imposition of value-added tax, such as global income tax as shown in the separate sheet No. 1 and the separate sheet No. 2, against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a representative of a cemetery A located in a Si group.

B. Around July 2011, the Defendant discovered the omission of a report on the purchase price of a cemetery and the revenue amount related to management expenses through a tax investigation against the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition imposing value-added tax, such as global income tax as stated in the attached Table 1 and the attached Table 2, on September 1, 2011 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s first rent, etc. received from the graveyard owners as income and disposed of each of the instant dispositions; (b) as the Plaintiff did not obtain permission for the graveyard A, some of the graveyard owners filed a complaint against the Plaintiff, etc. or filed a claim for damages; and (c) the Plaintiff paid the said graveyard damages corresponding to the initial rent, etc.

Therefore, among each disposition of this case, the part on the income equivalent to the initial rent that the Plaintiff returned to the funeral owner was subject to the premise. Thus, the part on the global income tax and value added tax imposed pursuant to each disposition of this case, which was first imposed by the Plaintiff, is confirmed to have no tax liability for the corresponding amount of the initial rent that the Plaintiff returned to the funeral owner, and the conjunctive disposition of this case is sought to revoke each disposition of this case.

3. Ex officio determination

A. Whether the main claim part of the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

First, with respect to the legitimacy of the primary claim among the lawsuits in this case, the lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of liability for tax payment is a lawsuit claiming the legal relationship itself under public law. Thus, pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 2 and Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the State, public organizations, and other legal entities that are one party to the legal relationship have standing for defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du2765, Sept. 8, 200); Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) and (d) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201); Article 4(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013); thus, the primary claim for the confirmation of existence of liability for tax payment against the defendant is unlawful.

B. Whether the conjunctive claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

Next, where an administrative litigation is instituted against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts on the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim part of the lawsuit in this case, the procedure for a request for examination or adjudgment, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be followed; and a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition is known (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of receiving the notice of disposition), (Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework

If Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number) shows the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant sent each of the dispositions of this case to the plaintiff on September 1, 201, and the plaintiff received the above tax payment notice around that time. Thus, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff received the above tax payment notice. Thus, in order for the plaintiff to seek the cancellation of each of the dispositions of this case, the plaintiff must undergo the pre-trial procedure such as a request for examination or a request for a trial within a legitimate period, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had undergone such pre-trial procedure within a legitimate period, the conjunctive claim part of this case is unlawful

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of the lawsuits. It is so decided as per Disposition.