Daejeon District Court 2012Guhap4946 ( November 27, 2013)

When a judgment dismissing a request for cancellation of a taxation disposition becomes final and conclusive, res judicata as to the legality of the disposition may not be determined differently.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation by asserting that the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur of the instant gas station is not a false tax invoice, and even if the false tax invoice was not known of such circumstances, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming revocation by asserting that there exists justifiable grounds, but the res judicata becomes final and conclusive upon the dismissal ruling, and thus, it cannot be determined inconsistent

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu1896 Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition, etc.

IsaA

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Guhap4946 Decided November 27, 2013

April 24, 2014

May 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's revocation of the imposition disposition of the value-added tax OOOO for the second period of September 1, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "third disposition of this case") that was made against the plaintiff on September 1, 2009 (the plaintiff revoked the imposition disposition of the value-added tax for the first period of June 24, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "first disposition of this case") against the plaintiff at the first instance court, and the imposition disposition of the value-added tax for the second period of the second year of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "second disposition of this case") at the second instance, and withdrawal of the lawsuit for revocation as to the first and second disposition of this case at the first instance court.)

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, with the exception of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part concerning the first and second dispositions of this case among the reasons for the first and second judgments, except for dismissal or addition of each corresponding part of the first and second judgments as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

• On the 4th page the testimony of the witness BB in the UB in the 13th trial by each testimony of the witness BB in the first instance trial and the SCC in the trial.

• by December 2009, between the amount of No. 4 and the amount of No. 18 shall be added on a regular basis.

• In light of the above facts found in Section 5, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff as the actual business operator of the gas station in this case, and in light of the above facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff, namely, the registration of business under the Value-Added Tax Act, the purpose of the system is to enable the tax authorities to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and secure the data for taxation. Thus, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff as the taxpayer, barring special circumstances, as the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax for a period of two years in 2009 under his/her own name. ② The Plaintiff’s regular acquisition of business profits can be deemed as participating in the gas station in this case beyond the mere lending limit. ③ The Plaintiff thought that his/her own business operator had been transferred toCC, and the Plaintiff later argued that his/her business operator had left the Plaintiff’s business operator. However, if the Plaintiff received part of his/her profits from U.B until December 2009 and reported the value-added tax under his/her name, it should be viewed that the Plaintiff’s actual business operator in this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance on the part of the revocation claim of the disposition No. 3 of this case is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit (the judgment of the court of first instance on the revocation claim of the disposition No. 1 and 2 of this case was withdrawn by the withdrawal of the lawsuit at the trial and the judgment of the court of first instance on it became null and void