If the defect is so serious that it can not be apparent even if it is serious, it can not be considered that the taxation is void as a matter of course.

1. If the issue of whether the subject of taxation is subject to taxation can only be clarified by accurately examining the facts, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of imposition is null and void as a matter of course, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of imposition is null and void as a matter of course.

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

2016Guhap68700 global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

9, 2017

6 April 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On April 1, 2004, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff for the year 2001 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 199, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the CCC (hereinafter “CCC”) on the commercial building, which was planned to be constructed on the ground of 21,21-5, Seoul ○○○-dong, 1999, under which the said company performed a sales agency business and received 10% of the sales price as a sales agency fee.

B. In the course of the tax investigation with respect to CCC, the Defendant secured the data that CCC paid the Plaintiff KRW 000,000,000 in cash as sales commission and KRW 0,000,000 as sales commission for commercial buildings and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff on April 1, 2004 of the rectification of the global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the global income tax for the year 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-5, respectively,

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff entered into a sales agency contract with the CCC and deposited KRW 00 million as a sales agency deposit, and around April 200, the Plaintiff lent KRW 00 million to the CCC but did not recover the above money and received a sales agency contract for commercial buildings not worth property due to payment in kind, and there was no actual revenue from the sales agency. However, since the Defendant issued the instant disposition by mistake based on the statement made by the CCC representative, the instant disposition is null and void because the defect is serious. Since the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of resident tax based on the instant disposition in around 2013, and became aware of the existence of the instant disposition. The Plaintiff sought nullification of the instant disposition in order to seek the revocation of the disposition, even though the disposition of this case remains.

B. Determination

1) In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that a certain legal relationship or factual basis that is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation or not, the relevant factual basis should be accurately examined, and even if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful taxation disposition that misleads the fact that it is subject to taxation cannot be deemed apparent even if it is serious, and thus, cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2723, Feb. 23, 2012).

According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant is recognized to have issued the instant disposition based on the documents, such as a sales contract and a sales contract for the payment of a parcelling-out agency fee, and the documents prepared by CCC representative DD in the course of a tax investigation. On the other hand, the assertion that the Plaintiff was unable to receive a parcelling-out agency fee can be verified only when investigating the facts accurately. Thus, even if there is a defect that the Plaintiff was erroneous in the amount of a parcelling-out agency fee paid to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if there is a defect that caused the Plaintiff’s mistake of the amount of the sales agency fee, the disposition cannot be deemed null

2) Also, even if the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the instant disposition was deemed as the grounds for invalidation of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the instant administrative disposition in the administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of the administrative disposition as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010). According to the evidence No. 1-3, the Defendant appears to have been notified of the instant disposition on April 1, 2004, while there is no evidence to deem that the delivery of the instant disposition was unlawful, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.