Suwon District Court 2006Guhap3736 (O. 25, 2007)

The mere fact that the information on tax evasion is specific does not constitute a case where there is clear evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion.

(3) Even if there is a report of tax evasion, it is difficult to see that the report of tax evasion is a case where there is a clear material to recognize a suspicion of tax evasion, on the sole basis of the fact that the report of tax evasion is specific, unless it is based on objectivity and reasonable material and it is highly probable to cause tax evasion.

2011Nu18030 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

○○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2006Guhap3736 Decided April 25, 2007

July 15, 2011

September 23, 2011

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2002 and value-added tax for the second period of 2002 shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to that part shall be dismissed;

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2004, on the tax base of KRW 2,911, 459, 110, value-added tax for the second period in 2002, value-added tax 82, 866, 060, and the tax base of KRW 101, 800, and 400 for the corporation belonging to the business year 203, shall be revoked.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition of taxation stated in the purport of the claim filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2004, and the court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims, and the court of first instance prior to remand dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal; the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal; and the Plaintiff’s appeal was filed upon multiple appeals; the Supreme Court remanded this part of the case to this court based on the part on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2002 and value-added tax for the second period of 2002, among the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand by the judgment of remand, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the remainder. Therefore, it is evident that the court of first instance reversed by the judgment of remand of the Supreme Court among the judgment of first instance, and determined only the part on the corporate tax for the business year 2002 and value-added tax for the second period of 2002 (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

2. Whether the lawsuit concerning the object to be tried in this case is lawful

In full view of the written evidence Nos. 27-1 through 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant is recognized to revoke ex officio the disposition of imposition as to the subject of the instant adjudication on June 17, 201, which is pending in the trial after the remand of the lawsuit on the subject of the instant adjudication. In light of the following, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of imposition as to the subject of the instant adjudication on June 17, 201, which is pending in the trial after the remand of the lawsuit on the subject of the instant adjudication. The disposition becomes retroactively null and void if the administrative disposition is revoked, and the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition as to the subject of the instant adjudication which has already become null and void is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit. Therefore, the lawsuit on the subject of the instant adjudication is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the first instance court