Cho Jae-2016-China-2795 (Law No. 16, 27 July 2016)

Whether the plaintiff is eligible to seek revocation of the disposition

Since the other party to the disposition of value-added tax and corporate tax in this case is not a plaintiff, the plaintiff does not have standing to seek revocation of the disposition.

Article 57 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Incheon District Court 2016Guhap54309 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax and individual local income tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

2017.06.09

oly, 2017.14

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 27,497,890, corporate tax of KRW 27,307,130, and global income tax of KRW 25,848,39 on February 1, 2016 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of ○ Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Steel”). The Defendant conducted a tax offense investigation following the notification of taxation data from November 6, 2015 to December 5, 2015 by the director of ○○ Steel Industry from November 6, 2015, and determined that the total amount of KRW 121,704,440, and the total amount of KRW 121,704,440, and the total amount of KRW 27,49, KRW 890, KRW 27,307, KRW 130, and KRW 130 (including the change in corporate tax and value-added tax) were false tax invoices in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009. On February 1, 2016, the Defendant imposed a tax assessment notice on the Plaintiff’s bonus income amount including the change in corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s income amount”).

B. On July 27, 2016, 201, ○ Steel filed a tax appeal on the imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax and notice of change in income amount on April 20, 2016, but received a final adjudication on November 28, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, on January 1, 2017, the Defendant imposed a global income tax of 30,113,650 won (including additional tax of 6,540,251 won) on the Plaintiff’s amount of income disposed of as bonus as above.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-4, Eul 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Part of the claim for revocation of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax

1) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

Since the other party to the assessment of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case is ○○ Steel, the plaintiff does not have the standing to seek revocation of the above disposition.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, the other party to the disposition imposing the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case can be recognized as ○ Steel, not the plaintiff, and otherwise, unless there is clear evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was notified of the above value-added tax and the corporate tax as the secondary taxpayer of ○ Steel, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case. Accordingly, the defendant's defense prior to the merits

B. The part on the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax amounting to 25,848,399

1) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

The imposition of global income tax on January 1, 2017 against the plaintiff is unlawful because it does not go through the procedure of the preceding trial.

2) Determination

First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant imposed global income tax amounting to KRW 25,848,39 on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2016 (the Defendant appears to impose global income tax amounting to KRW 30,113,650 on the Plaintiff on January 1, 2017 according to the notice of change in the amount of income on the Plaintiff, as in the foregoing basic facts). Therefore, among the instant lawsuit, there is a lot of room to deem that the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of global income tax among the instant lawsuit is against non-existent disposition.

Even if the Defendant’s global income tax disposition that the Plaintiff sought revocation was imposed on the Plaintiff on January 1, 2017, on global income tax of 30,113,650 won in the year 2009, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had gone through legitimate pre-trial proceedings against the said disposition (under the above basic facts, it appears that ○ Steel was subject to tax proceeding with respect to notice of change in the amount of income that ○○ Steel’s admission to the Plaintiff. However, corporate tax and global income tax are entirely different from each other, while corporate tax and global income tax are entirely different from the tax authority, even if corporate income was generated through non-deductible, even if corporate income was reserved to the corporation or leaked out, it is not necessarily deemed that such income belongs to the representative, and thus, even if a corporation undergoes the pre-trial proceedings against the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that it naturally goes through the pre-trial proceeding, and thus, it does not constitute a defense against the Defendant’s judgment prior to the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du167).

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.