In a case where Gap et al. filed a claim against Byung to implement the procedure to change Eul's business registration name after completing business registration under Eul's name with Eul and operating an affected bank, the case holding that "the implementation of the procedure for change of business registration" cannot be claimed as a lawsuit

In a case where Party A filed a claim against Party B to implement the procedure to change the name of business in the name of Party B after having taken over the shares of Party B after having taken over the shares of Party B, the case holding that: (a) the registration of business is a simple report of business fact with legislative intent to identify the taxpayer and secure taxation data; and (b) the issuance of the registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate verifying such registration; and (c) the tax authority shall ex officio cancel the registration when the business is not actually commenced after the registration was registered before the commencement of the business due to closure of the business or the commencement of the new business; (d) the cancellation of the registration is merely an act of stating the closure of the business, not an act of changing the name of the business operator in the name of the specific place of business; and (e) the registration of business is not an act of changing the name of the business operator or not an act of not providing for the procedure for changing the name of the business operator in the above Act.

Article 5 (1) and (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 168 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 201Gahap1302 decided September 30, 2011

December 14, 2011

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant will implement the procedure for changing the name of the business registration entered in the list (attached Form) on the ground of termination of title trust on the date of service of the copy of the application for changing the purport of the claim and the cause of the

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff agreed to operate the room with Nonparty 1 as a partner, and transferred the total of KRW 110,000,000 to Nonparty 1 as investment money from June 30, 2005 to October 28, 2005.

B. Accordingly, on September 23, 2005, Nonparty 1 leased from Nonparty 2 the store located in the Gu-U.S., Si-Gu, Young-gu, Young-si from the Defendant to KRW 20 million, monthly, and KRW 800,000,000. On September 23, 2005, Nonparty 1 opened the above commercial building “○○○○ Sil” (hereinafter “the instant store”). On October 25, 2005, Nonparty 1 started to operate the instant bank from November 2005, after opening the business registration as indicated in the list of the Defendant [Attachment] (hereinafter “the instant business registration”).

C. In around 207, the Plaintiff acquired the shares of Nonparty 1 from Nonparty 1 during the instant skin and intended to independently operate the instant skin. Around July 16, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained from the Defendant a certificate of personal seal impression stating “for delegation of registration in the case of an application for registration of a business” from the Defendant for delegation of registration of a business, and failed to file an application for registration transfer until the expiry of the term of validity. On June 30, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a certificate of personal seal impression stating “for submission of administrative documents in the case of Gu,” and a certificate of personal seal impression stating “for the purpose of use” in the column for use on May 14, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that the business registration of this case under the name of the defendant was made under the title trust between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, and that the title trust was terminated after he acquired the shares of the non-party 1 in the case of the trial of this case.

With respect to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio, ① Business registration is made by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, along with a specific document within 20 days from the date of commencing the business. The legislative purpose of this business registration is to enable the tax office to identify the taxpayer and secure the taxation data. This is to establish a business registration by submitting a report of business fact to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, and the issuance of a business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration. According to Article 5(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the tax office must cancel the registration ex officio if the business operator fails to commence the business after the business is closed or newly registered before the date of commencing the business, and the cancellation of the business registration is not only the cancellation of the business registration, but also the change of the business name and the status of the business operator is not affected by the change of the business registration procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 209Du69390, Dec. 22, 200).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, shall be revoked, and it shall be revoked ex officio, and it shall be so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Business Registration: Omitted

Judges Hong-Myeon (Presiding Judge)