Whether an ex officio revocation of business registration by a tax authority under the Value-Added Tax Act is an administrative disposition subject to appeal (negative)

The purpose of the business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and to secure the taxation data, which is established by submitting a report of business fact by a business operator prescribed by the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate verifying such registration. According to Article 5 (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, when a business operator closes down or intends to start a new business and fails to start a business after registration before the commencement of the business, the tax authority must cancel the registration ex officio. However, the cancellation of the business registration is merely a statement of business closure, and it does not cause a change in the status of the business operator by the reason that the registration of the tax

Article 5(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Articles 7, 8, and 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu416 Decided June 14, 1983 (Gong1983, 1091), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu156 Decided March 8, 198 (Gong198, 690), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17355 Decided December 10, 1993 (Gong194, 391), Supreme Court Decision 98Du2119 Decided February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 721)

Plaintiff

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu990 delivered on May 20, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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 to secure the taxation data, which is established by filing a report of business fact with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du2119 delivered on February 11, 200). Article 5(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax authority shall ex officio cancel the registration when the business is not commenced after the business is closed or newly commenced and the business is registered before the commencement of the business, and the cancellation of the registration is only a statement of business closure, but it does not cause a change in the status of the business operator, and therefore, the ex officio cancellation of registration by the tax authority cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of objection (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17355 delivered on December 10, 193).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of Article 11 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The remaining grounds of appeal are based on the premise that the act of ex officio cancellation of business registration constitutes an administrative disposition, and therefore there is no need to further determine.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)