Notification of change in the name of the business operator constitutes a simple factual act.

The notification of change of name is merely a simple factual act, and it does not cause any change in the status of a business operator. Therefore, the notification of change of name cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

2018Guhap1494 Revocation of disposition of changing the name of business operator

Kim 00

○ Head of tax office

November 14, 2013

December 12, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 20, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of changing the name of the business operator against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of a contract for business transfer;

1) On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred DD (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”) located in Gangwon-do and ADB from Gangwon-do to 00:00,000, 641, to KRW 100 million on condition that it operates the instant restaurant for ten months; and (b) Gangwon-A and DB agreed to pay KRW 165,000,000 to the Plaintiff for KRW 10,000 and take over the instant restaurant again (hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer agreement”).

2) On the same day, the Plaintiff filed an application for the business registration with the Defendant as “DD”, “date of commencement of the business”, “type of business”, and “type of business”, on the same day, and immediately thereafter, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a business registration certificate with the registration number of 00-00-000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant business registration”).

B. Change of the defendant's business registration name of this case

On March 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant transfer contract was aimed at securing the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Plaintiff’s rightB; (b) changed the instant business registration name ex officio on the ground that the actual operator of the instant restaurant was GangwonA, etc.; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the change of name (hereinafter “instant notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The parties' assertion

With respect to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the notification of change of name was an illegal administrative disposition, the Defendant shall not be an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

B. Determination

The purpose of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and secure the taxation data. Thus, this is merely a report of business fact, which is established by a business operator by submitting a prescribed business operator registration application to the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of a business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate verifying such registration. Furthermore, the ex officio revocation of business registration by the tax authority under Article 5(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation in that it merely includes the fact of business closure and does not cause a change in the status of the business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du6903, Dec. 22, 2000). In light of the above, in the process of managing business registration by the tax authority, the correction of the name of the business operator in the name of the actual business operator by its authority is merely a correction entry of the main agent among the pertinent business facts, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that becomes subject to appeal litigation (see, etc.

In the case of this case, the defendant recognized that the actual business operator of this case was not the plaintiff and changed the title holder of the business registration of this case from the plaintiff to the KangA through the notification of change of name of this case. In light of the above legal principles, the notification of change of name of this case is merely an act of simple fact, and it does not cause any change in the status of the business operator as to the restaurant of this case.

Therefore, the notification of change of name of this case cannot be seen as an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and the defendant's prior objection to the merits is reasonable.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not a subject of appeal, and it is illegal and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.