The instant disposition does not have a correlation with a public official’s breach of duty of direct injury.

The damage claimed by the Plaintiff is not a disposition due to occupational negligence not caused by a public official’s failure to inform another person of his/her business registration and to recommend the closure of business, but a disposition imposed on the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not pay the tax to him/her while continuing to operate the gas station under his/her own name. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there

Article 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's 2014Kadan10649

BB

CCC

National Rotations

April 22, 2015

May 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 80,000,000 and the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the plaintiff

up to twenty percent (20%) per annum shall be paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A business, around February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the trade name in the Boan tax secretary book into “aa gas station,” the location of the place of business, “Asan-si, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, and the category as “do and retail”, and the category as “gas station.”

A. From that time, the Plaintiff was registered as the gas station of this case (hereinafter “the gas station of this case”).

'Lawsuit' was operated and closed on April 20, 2010.

B. In the first and second taxable periods of value-added tax in 2009, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice for the total value of KRW 1,226,334,00, the total value of which is 591,545,00, and the total value of which is 08,254,545, and 545, respectively, from the Seoul Seoul Branch of the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “D”) and reported and paid the value-added tax for the first and second taxable periods of 2009 after deducting the input tax from the output tax amount.

C. Tax support for the gas station of this case from February 25, 2010 to March 25, 2010

As a result of the resignation, b and c revealed to be so-called "data world", the input tax amount was deducted on June 24, 2010 by viewing each tax invoice received by the Plaintiff as a false tax invoice, and thus, on June 24, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a correction and notice of KRW 181,359,69,69, and value-added tax of KRW 105,189,570 for the second year value-added tax in 2009 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above dispositions").

D. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 6, 2010.

However, it was dismissed on December 23, 2010.

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming revocation of the instant disposition Nos. 1 and 2 by asserting that each tax invoice received from B and C is not false, but is not false, and even if false tax invoices were to be known, there exists a justifiable ground for not knowing such circumstances. However, the judgment was rendered on September 28, 201 (Seoul District Court Decision 201Guhap1308). The said judgment was completely dismissed, and both appeals and appeals were dismissed and concluded on August 17, 2012 (Seoul High Court Decision 201Nu2017, Apr. 5, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du9406, Aug. 17, 2012).

F. After that, as a result of an additional tax investigation, d.D., the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from the Plaintiff was deemed as a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff’s input tax amount was deducted on September 1, 2012, and the Plaintiff corrected and notified KRW 49,563,010 in addition to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On October 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition No. 3, and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 11, 2012

However, it was dismissed on November 27, 2012.

H. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of both dispositions of this case 1, 2, and 3 against the Plaintiff, asserting that the actual business operator of the gas station in this case took over the gas station in this case from e andff or from them, and that the Plaintiff only lent the gas station in the name of the business operator. Therefore, each of the dispositions against the Plaintiff was unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation, but was sentenced to the judgment dismissing the claim on November 27, 2013 (Seoul Daejeon District Court 2012Guhap4946) (the Daejeon District Court 2012Guhap496). The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but was sentenced to the judgment dismissing the appeal (the Daejeon High Court 2013Nu1896 decided May 15, 2014, the claim for revocation of the dispositions of this case 1, 2014 was concluded as the lawsuit withdrawn at the appellate court of the Plaintiff), and the above dismissal judgment became final and conclusive as the expiration of the period of June 6, 2014.

자. 한편 hh은 2009. 3. 13. 사업자등록을 신청하면서 그 신청서 상호 란에 이 사건 주유소와 동일한 상호인 'aa주유소', 사업장 소재지 란에 이 사건 주유소와 유사한 지번인 '아산시 영인면 백석포리 ##'이라고 기재하였다. 그런데 위 지번은 등기부상 존재하지 않는다. 천안세무서 담당 공무원은 그 무렵 hh의 사업자등록을 받고, 신청대로의 사업자등록증을 교부하였다.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 1 through 5, Eul's evidence 1 and 2

Each entry, including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual operation of the gas station of this case sold the gas station of this case to h. Accordingly, on March 19, 2009, e succeeded to the status of the petroleum retailer to h.

H An application for the registration of business made on March 13, 2009 by h is to operate the gas station of this case after succession to the gas station of this case. The public officials in charge of the astronomical tax secretary shall register the business in the name of the plaintiff from hh on March 13, 2009.

Since registration of business with respect to the same trade name and similar place of business has been applied for, the plaintiff

It should have known this fact and recommended the closure of business. However, the Director of the Boan Tax Office

A public official neglected his/her duty and received registration as a business operator in accordance with the application from hh as he/she neglected his/her business registration under the name of the Plaintiff. For this reason, e and h received a false tax invoice from each of the above materials while managing the gas station in this case, and as a result, the Plaintiff was subject to the tax imposed on each of the above dispositions in this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the negligence of an employee who is a public official belonging to the Defendant, and thus, sought compensation for damages.

3. Determination

A. Whether a public official in charge of astronomical tax affairs was negligent

First of all, it is necessary to consider whether the public official in charge of the Boan tax office, who received the application for the business registration of hh, has the obligation to inform the Plaintiff of the application for the business registration of h.

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9, the civil petition name filed by H at the time of application for business registration is "report on succession to status (the petroleum refining businessman, petroleum exporter or importer, and petroleum retailer)"

In addition, the fact that the report on succession to status (the petroleum refining business, petroleum export-import business, petroleum retail business, alternative fuel manufacture and export-import business, alternative fuel retail business, and alternative fuel retail business, and the fact that the employee in charge of Boan tax office reported on September 2, 2010 that "the results of the investigation into the site of the gas station in this case coincide with the contents of the application for registration of the business operator."

However, the legislative intent of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authority to ascertain the taxpayer of the value-added tax and to secure the taxation data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu228, Jul. 26, 1983). This is established by filing a report of business fact with the head of the competent tax office by submitting a business registration application (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2200, Jan. 27, 201). Article 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act"), Articles 7 through 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act"), and the tax office in charge of business registration cannot be deemed to meet the existing requirements for rectification.

Therefore, solely based on the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the public official in charge of the Boan tax office who received the application for the business registration of h has the duty to inform the Plaintiff of the application for the business registration of h, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. We examine whether there exists a causal relationship between the public official in charge of the astronomical tax affairs and the losses suffered by the plaintiff, and whether the public official in charge of the astronomical tax affairs, in receipt of the application for the business registration of hh, did not inform the plaintiff of the application for the business registration.

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff may each be acknowledged as having not asserted that the plaintiff was not the actual business operator in the past lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (Seoul District Court Decision 2011Guhap1308, its appellate court, and its appellate court). The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and the above evidence, namely, it is reasonable to view the plaintiff as the tax obligor since the plaintiff was reported and paid for the second half of 2009 when the plaintiff was registered as his own business under his own name, and the plaintiff maintained the business registration name of the gas station in the second half of 209, which was the taxable period of the disposition No. 3 of this case and reported and reported directly on April 20, 2010.

Ultimately, as long as the Plaintiff is judged as an actual business operator of the gas station of this case, it is difficult to view the damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the business process without notifying the Plaintiff of the application for the registration of the hh’s business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the public official in charge of the No. Y., upon receiving the application for the business registration of the hh, has the obligation to inform the plaintiff of the fact of the application for the business registration of the hh, and the plaintiff's claim based on the premise of " there is a causal relation between the business affairs of the public official who neglected this obligation and the plaintiff's damage." Thus, it shall be dismissed and it