Whether the Plaintiff is the nominal name holder, and whether the degree of the defect is null and void since it is significant and apparent.

(1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the instant business cannot be deemed as null and void as it is sufficiently anticipated that the Plaintiff reported value-added tax on the instant business, as long as the Plaintiff consented to the registration of the instant business entity, and thus, the Plaintiff was not the actual business entity of the instant business, and even if there were significant defects in the disposition of the instant case, it cannot be deemed as objectively apparent

2016du5326 Action to nullify the imposition of value-added tax

A Kim A

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu35962 Decided August 18, 2016

on January 13, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Tax in the method of filing a return is, in principle, determined by a taxpayer’s own determination of tax base and amount of tax, and its payment is the performance of specific tax liability determined by a return, and the State holds the amount of tax paid based on the determined tax claim as such. Therefore, insofar as the act of a taxpayer’s filing a return is not void as a matter of course due to a serious and apparent defect, it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, as to whether the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return falls under the invalidation as a matter of course due to a significant and apparent defect, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the filing of the report, should be considered as a matter of course,

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da63464 Decided February 8, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81257 Decided April 23, 2009, etc.

If an administrative disposition is taken against a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations subject to an administrative disposition, the defect is significant and obvious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead that person is subject to an administrative disposition with respect to certain legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to an administrative disposition, and where it can only be found whether it is subject to an administrative disposition or whether it is subject to an accurate investigation of such factual relations, it cannot be said that it is apparent in appearance even if the mistake is serious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da46722, May 9, 197).

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) the defect in reporting the value-added tax on the instant business of e-mail cannot be deemed null and void as it is significant and apparent; and (b) the case where the principal tax liability of value-added tax is not established.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidity of the VAT declaration.

There is no violation of law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is decided by all participating Justices.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.