Where a clan A received a unique number certificate from the head of the competent district tax office, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the issuance and correction of a unique number certificate, the case holding that the lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful.

In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking the issuance and cancellation of a unique number certificate, which received a unique number certificate from the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the clan as the representative of the clan Byung received a correction certificate as the representative of the clan Byung, the case holding that since the issuance and correction of a unique number certificate cannot be deemed an administrative disposition which is the object of appeal litigation, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition, on the ground that the registration of a unique number brings a change to the status of the business operator or is not a juristic person granted pursuant

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 168 (5) of the Income Tax Act, Article 220 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Dong District Office

October 30, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On April 5, 2011, the defendant considered Nonparty 1 as the representative of the species of complete acid disability and issued identification numbers, and the corrective disposition of the representative among the identification numbers, which reported Nonparty 2 as the representative of the above clan on February 21, 2012, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall notify each financial institution located in the Cheongju-si and the non-party 1 and 2 of the written judgment of this case within two weeks from the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

1. Details of the disposition;

On April 5, 201, the members of the clan of the clan (hereinafter referred to as "the clan of this case") received the identification number (number omitted), the representative has obtained the identification number (hereinafter referred to as "issuance of identification number of this case") from the defendant, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, and the identification number (non-party 1 to non-party 2) corrected the representative of the clan of this case from the defendant on February 21, 2012 from the defendant to non-party 1 to non-party 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Correction of identification number of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the issuance and correction of the identification number of this case is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and that the lawsuit of this case was filed without going through the indispensable procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek revocation of the issuance of identification number of this case, and that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) First of all, with respect to whether the issuance and correction of identification number certificates of this case constitutes an administrative disposition, the registration of identification number is a simple factual act, not a change in the status of an entrepreneur, or a legal entity under the Civil Act or any other special Act. The purpose of the registration of a business under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and secure the taxation data. This is to establish a report of a business fact by submitting a business registration application to the head of the competent tax office. The issuance of a registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation in that it does not cause a change in the status of an entrepreneur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du6903, Dec. 22, 2000; 2008Du2200, Jan. 27, 2011). Therefore, the issuance of identification number and correction of this case cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

2) Meanwhile, the part on which the Plaintiff seeks notification of the instant written judgment among the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as subject to administrative litigation, and this part of the instant lawsuit is also unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Woo-man (Presiding Judge)