Collection disposition is not a taxation subject to revocation lawsuit.

Since the collection disposition is not a taxation subject to a revocation lawsuit, the plaintiff's claim is illegal.

Article 49 (Final Tax Return and Payment)

2017Guhap62090 Action Demanding revocation of Disposition, such as Value-Added Tax

OO

O Head of tax office

oly 18, 2017

oly 25, 2017

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the disposition of KRW 24,93,850 (including additional tax 217,492), KRW 64,056,70 (including additional tax 740,796), KRW 47,726,610 (including additional tax 602,085), KRW 28,072,57, and KRW 17,789,410 (including additional tax 1,494,431) for the global income tax for the year 2015 that the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff on October 20, 2016, shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 24,93,850 (including additional tax of KRW 217,492), additional tax of KRW 8,749,370 (including additional tax of KRW 217,492), additional tax of KRW 64,056,70 (including additional tax of KRW 740,796), additional tax of KRW 4,227,740 (including additional tax of KRW 740,796), additional tax of KRW 47,726,610 (including additional tax of KRW 602,085), additional tax of KRW 3,149,920, KRW 28,77,280 for year 2016 on the Plaintiff on October 20, 2016; and the imposition of additional tax of KRW 47,726,417,417,417,419,797,417,417,797

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a business operator who engages in the wholesale and retail manufacturing business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business establishment”) of 20O.O.O.O.O. O.O.O. O.O.O.O.O.'s trade name, “AAAAA” at O-O.O.O., such as waste plastics, re-collection of data, and plastic crushing (a evidence No. 1).

B. From 20O.O.O. to 20O.O.O.O., the Defendant issued the Plaintiff the value-added tax and global income tax assessment and notice of each amount (including additional tax) indicated in the following table in relation to the business of the instant workplace (in addition to the imposition and notice of each of the above taxes, No. 1-1 to 8; hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. 20O.O.O. 20 billion won (including additional tax 217,49,492 won), additional dues 24,93,850 won (including additional tax 217,492), additional dues 8,749,370 won (including additional tax 740,796 won), additional dues 4,227,740 won, additional dues 47,726,610 won (including additional tax 602,085 won), additional dues 3,149,920, 127, 280 won (including additional tax 217,492), additional dues 2015, and additional dues 37,417, 2015 (including additional dues 740,796 won), additional dues 47,417, 205, 37, 417, 47, 2017.

D. The Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of each of the instant assessment and collection notices (hereinafter referred to as “instant petition for adjudication”) and the Tax Tribunal dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s above petition for adjudication (Evidence A No. 14).

(Evidence) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 12-1 through 5, Gap evidence 13-3, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 1-1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The party's assertion

1) Plaintiff’s assertion

Around 200O.O.O., the Plaintiff only lent the name of the business operator in the instant workplace to CCC at the request of the Plaintiff’s spouse BB, and did not participate in the operation of the said workplace. In addition, BB and CCC did not deliver the statement of payment in the prior notice to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff knew the fact that each of the instant notice of imposition should have been issued after the receipt of the instant statement of payment. The Defendant’s each of the instant notice of imposition, premised on the Plaintiff’s premise that the Plaintiff is the actual business operator in the instant workplace, should be revoked.

2) Defendant’s assertion

A) Each of the instant assessment and notice is a collection disposition of value-added tax and global income tax, which is a tax determined by the method of filing a return, and thus cannot be deemed a disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit. The instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B) Each of the instant dispositions imposed and collected by 20O.O.O.O.O.O. in the year 2016, both written notices were served on the Plaintiff at least 90 days prior to the date the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal. Since the remainder of the instant dispositions, other than the notice imposed and collected by the 20O.O.O.O.O., did not go through legitimate procedures, it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

1) Determination as to the assertion that the revocation lawsuit is not subject to a revocation lawsuit

A) According to Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 49(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 70(1) of the Income Tax Act, value-added tax and global income tax are taxes in the form of tax return, and a taxpayer is obligated to pay the amount of tax after determining the amount of tax when the taxpayer files a tax base and amount of tax. If the taxpayer, while having reported the tax base and amount of tax of value-added tax and global income tax but failed to pay the amount of tax, and the tax authority rendered a tax payment notice by adding the amount of tax paid, then such disposition constitutes a mixture of a disposition ordering the payment of value-added tax and global income tax, and a disposition imposing and collecting additional tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1313, Apr. 28, 1992). Of which the tax authority notifies the same amount of tax as the reported amount of tax without correcting the tax base and amount of tax, it cannot be deemed a disposition subject to revocation lawsuit (see, e.g.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence 12-1 through 5, Gap evidence 13-3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 5, and Eul evidence 8, the part of the principal tax of this case is "the amount not paid by each due date out of the principal tax of 2014, 2015, 1, 2015, 1, 1, 2016, and the principal tax of 1, 2015, and the global income tax of 2015, for which the plaintiff is liable for duty payment," and "the defendant notifies the same amount of tax as the reported amount without any correction for each of the above reported matters." Accordingly, the principal tax of this case is merely merely requested or ordered to discharge tax obligations, and it cannot be deemed a taxation disposition subject to revocation lawsuit. Among the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for revocation of the principal tax of this case is unlawful.

2) Determination as to the assertion that a legitimate procedure for a prior trial was not followed

A) Articles 55, 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that an administrative litigation against a disposition of national taxes shall not be filed without going through a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, and a request for evaluation or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known. In addition, Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "documents under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the title holder, and the main sentence of Article 12(1) of the same Act provides that "the document served under Article 8 shall take effect from the time when the person to whom the service is to be

On the other hand, the arrival as a requirement for taking effect of an administrative disposition means the date when the other party to the disposition becomes aware of the fact that the other party to the disposition was notified of the fact that it was an administrative disposition and actually aware of the fact that it was an administrative disposition by the other party, but it is sufficient for the other party to the disposition to be informed of the details of the written disposition and that the written disposition was served at the domicile of the other party to the disposition and the person entrusted with the authority to receive postal items received the documents at the domicile of the other party to the disposition. In addition, the "date when the other party becomes aware of the existence of the disposition, etc." means the date when the other party becomes aware of the fact that it was taken by the other party to the disposition through the notification, public notice, or any other means, and it can be presumed that the other party to the disposition was aware of the disposition unless there is any counter-proof evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du60577, Mar. 9, 2017).

B) In the instant case, the Defendant issued the instant prior notice and notice between 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and the amount notified by the prior notice and notice, including both the principal tax imposed and notice imposed and the amount of the instant penalty tax imposed and the additional tax imposed, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the 20O.O.O.O. Tax Tribunal seeking the revocation of each of the instant notice and notice imposed and notice imposed in the instant case, as recognized in the preceding 1-b. through d., the following facts can be acknowledged according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 14, 15, and No. 2-1 through 6, as well as the overall purport of the arguments.

(1) As indicated below, the Defendant served the notice of the prior notice of the assessment and notice in the instant case on the domicile (O-O, 1 unit, O-O, O-type O-O, O-type, O-type, O-type, O-type, O-type) or the address of the Plaintiff (O-type O-O, O-type O-type, O-O-type) by registered mail or delivery, and BB or DD received the said notice between 2O.O.O.O.O.O. and 20O.O.O. (A. No. 14, 2-2, 2-6).

(2) ADD was an employee of the instant workplace at the time of receipt of the notice of value-added tax set forth in the 200O.O.O.O., 2014, and delivered the said notice to CCC (the husband of the Plaintiff) who was the type of BB (the Plaintiff’s husband) (Evidence A No. 15).

C) (1) This is (1) The Plaintiff received some of the notice of the preceding notice of the notice of the tax assessment and assessment in 200O.O.O.O.O.O., and the Plaintiff asserted that in the process of this trial, the Plaintiff directly delivered the notice to CCC. (2) Even if the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is a title truster of the place of business of this case, the Plaintiff at least would be subject to taxation on the business of the place of this case and would have known that the tax payment slip would be served at the place of business of this case or the Plaintiff’s domicile. In addition, BB, DD and CCC was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to receive the tax notice of the preceding notice of the assessment and assessment in this case. Thus, it can be presumed that BB, DD and CCC had been aware that the Plaintiff had received the tax notice of this case on the date on which “the date of receipt” was indicated in the “date of receipt” as stated in BB, DD’s receipt of the above tax notice.

As to this, the Plaintiff did not deliver the notice of tax notice of the preceding notice to the Plaintiff after receiving the notice of tax notice of the instant prior notice. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was aware of each of the instant notice of tax notice after receiving the notice of tax notice directly from 20O.O.O.O.O., but it is insufficient to reverse the presumption by itself, and there is no other evidence to reverse it. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the imposition and collection of the additional tax of this case, 200.O.O.O.O.O. 2016 (hereinafter “the first value-added tax of 2016”) was filed without lawful pre-trial procedure, as it was found that the Plaintiff had known that there was a disposition as to the remainder of the assessment and collection other than the amount of the imposition and collection of the additional tax of 1.00,000 won (hereinafter “the first value-added tax of 2016”), and filed the instant lawsuit accordingly. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the additional tax of this case, other than the first value-added tax of 2016, 2016, is unlawful as it was filed without lawful pre-trial procedure.

3) Sub-decisions

Among the instant lawsuits, the claim for revocation of the notice of imposition and collection of the principal tax of this case cannot be deemed a taxation subject to revocation lawsuit, and thus is unlawful. As such, the claim for revocation of the notice of imposition and collection of the additional tax of this case, excluding the portion of the first time value added tax in 2016, is unlawful.

D. Whether the instant additional dues and the first time value-added tax imposed and collected in 2016 are lawful

1) Relevant legal principles

As a matter of course, additional dues and aggravated additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act naturally arise pursuant to the above provisions in cases where national taxes are in arrears, and the amount thereof is determined. However, in cases where demand for the payment of additional dues and increased additional dues are unreasonable or defects exist in the procedure, the aforementioned additional dues and increased additional dues can be contested by a suit seeking revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu147, Oct. 28, 1986). However, even if the tax collection disposition has independence as separate administrative disposition, it cannot be deemed that the defect in the tax disposition is naturally succeeded to the initial tax collection disposition unless the tax disposition becomes invalid or non-existent (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu383, Sept. 22, 1987; 87Nu389, Nov. 27, 2001; 209Du1985, Nov. 27, 2001).

2) Determination

In general, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any factual relation such as legal relation, income, or act, which is subject to taxation, is significant and apparent, but in case where there are objective reasons to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or fact which is not subject to taxation, if it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that it is obvious that it is appearance even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

3. Conclusion

Among the instant lawsuits, the instant additional charges and the imposition of additional taxes for the first period of 2016.

Since the part of the claim for revocation as to the remaining part except the part of the claim for revocation as to the notification is unlawful, it shall be dismissed, and the remaining part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.