Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap36340 ( May 21, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007Du2816 (O6, 16, 2008)

Any lawsuit against a disposition that is not extinguished by the defendant's disposition for reduction or correction is unlawful.

Since the defendant can recognize the fact that the disposition of reduction or correction to revoke the disposition of imposing additional tax for additional tax on the erroneous payment of value-added tax, the lawsuit on the reversed part of this case is invalid as it does not have a

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

2012Nu6348 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Maximum XX

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap36340 decided May 21, 2009

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu15328 Decided November 26, 2009

Supreme Court Decision 2009Du23594 Decided February 10, 2011

Judgment before re-return

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu7108 Decided August 17, 2011

[Judgment of re-return]

Supreme Court Decision 2011Du22099 Decided January 27, 2012

April 13, 2012

August 31, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant who rejects the lawsuit below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition on the Plaintiff on April 5, 2007, and the lawsuit on the portion of KRW 000 out of KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first term of 2003 and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second term of 2003 is dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 00 on April 5, 2007 against the Plaintiff, KRW 000 on the second quarter value-added tax for the year 2002, KRW 000 on the first quarter value-added tax for the year 2003, KRW 000 on the second quarter value-added tax for the year 2003, KRW 000 on the first quarter for the year 2004, and KRW 00 on the corporate tax for the business year 2004 was revoked (Provided, That the remainder of the claim, other than the claim seeking revocation of each non-performance penalty tax (the part dismissing the lawsuit in paragraph 1) for the second quarter of the value-added tax for the year 1 and 203, was separately determined as follows).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

(a) Details of the disposition and progress to this court;

Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts.

1) XX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) was established for the purpose of wholesale and trade business on October 21, 2002. The Plaintiff owned the entire shares of the non-party company and serves as a representative director from December 31, 2002.

2) The non-party company: (a) purchased gold bullion from OO Ltd, Y Bank (YBk), or purchased gold bullion from TPPd, as indicated in the details of issuance of the sales tax invoice in the separate sheet; (b) sold zero billion won to four domestic gold bullion wholesalers, such as GG-basedcom, to June 27, 2003; and (c) issued 49 copies of the relevant tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales tax invoice”) on the basis of the total value of supply at KRW 00; (d) purchased three gold bullions, such as SS, from 16 April 200 to 12, 204; and (e) purchased gold bullion from 3 gold bullion wholesalers, such as 200 won in total, and completed the purchase of gold bullion 9 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax invoice”) on the basis of the relevant tax invoice 200, 2004 and 204.

3) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office determined each of the tax invoices of this case as "tax invoices different from the facts" as a result of the investigation of the offense against the non-party company, and on July 1, 2006, the defendant corrected and notified the value-added tax and corporate tax as follows to the non-party company:

(1) Value-added tax on the second quarter of 2002 [Additional Tax on Non-Submission, etc. of List of Total Tax Invoices (hereinafter referred to as "unSubmission, etc.")]

② The value-added tax for the first period of 200 on September 27, 2003 (the amount of the value-added tax shall be KRW 000, including the denial of the deduction of the purchase tax amount, KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000, and KRW 000, respectively). The sum of the value-added tax shall be 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(3) Value-added tax for the second period of 203 (00 won for denial of the deduction of a purchase tax amount, and for failure to submit, etc., additional tax of 00 won for additional tax, 000 won for non-declaration of return, and 000 additional tax for insincere payment)

(4) Value-added tax for the first period of 204 (00 won for denial of the deduction of a purchase tax amount, and additional tax for failure to submit, etc., 000 won for additional tax, 000 won for insincere return, additional tax for insincere return, and 000 won for additional tax for insincere payment)

(5) Corporate tax which reverts to the business year 2004 (additional tax for collecting evidential documents)

4) On April 5, 2007, when the non-party company did not pay taxes, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer and notified the plaintiff to pay the value-added tax and the corporate tax (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

5) The Plaintiff won all of the instant disposition in the first instance court, and the first instance court prior to the remand rejected the Defendant’s appeal. Upon the Defendant’s appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the first and second period portion in 2003 and the first period portion in 2004, excluding additional taxes, such as non-submission of the judgment prior to remand, and reversed and remanded the part on the imposition of value-added tax for the first period in 2003, and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.

The court of the first instance prior to the second instance prior to the remanding portion revoked the judgment on the remanded portion, and among them, the court dismissed the lawsuit on the portion of additional tax amount 000 won and the portion of additional tax amount 000 won due due to failure to pay among the value-added tax for the first period portion of 2003 and the second period value-added tax for 2003, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the remainder. In other words, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, which partially accepted the appeal, and the Supreme Court reversed the said part of the appeal and remanded

(b) Scope of adjudication;

According to the above facts, the scope to be judged by this court after re-transmission is limited to the above reversed part (the part of the additional tax in the first and second portions of the value-added tax in 2003; hereinafter referred to as "the reversed part of this case"), and the remaining parts were separately determined.

2. Whether the lawsuit on the reversed portion of this case is legitimate

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 36, on April 4, 2012, the defendant recognized the fact that on April 4, 2012, the defendant revoked the imposition of the additional tax amounting to KRW 000 and the additional tax amounting to KRW 000 for the second period of value added tax for the second period of 2003.

According to the above facts, the above disposition of imposition has already ceased to exist due to the above correction of reduction, and thus, the lawsuit on the reversed part of this case is invalid as it does not have any interest in lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit on the reversal of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance on the above part is revoked and the lawsuit on the above part is dismissed.