Whether the input tax amount falls under the case of failing to apply for registration of business under Article 22 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act or whether the input tax amount falls under the input tax amount before filing for registration of business under Article 17 (2) 5 of the same Act after cancellation of registration of business.

The input tax amount prior to the registration of a business under Article 17 (2) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be deemed to be the input tax amount prior to the filing of an application for registration. Therefore, if a taxpayer has operated a business after the completion of his/her business, and the tax authority classify the input tax amount as an unregistered business operator after ex officio cancelling his/her business registration in accordance with the internal guidelines, and applied the unregistered additional tax without deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, but if a taxpayer continues to operate a business during the taxable period, such input tax amount cannot be deemed to fall under one of the input tax amounts prior to the filing of the business registration, and no additional tax may be levied on

Articles 5(1), 17(2)5, and 22(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu32274 delivered on July 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Articles 5(1), 17(2)5, and 22(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, a person who newly starts a business may register with the Government within 20 days from the date of commencing the business and register it even before the date of commencing the business. The input tax amount before such business registration is determined as one of the cases where the tax amount to be paid for the value-added tax is not deducted from the output tax amount. If a person who newly starts a business fails to file an application for business registration within 20 days from the date of commencing the business, a certain ratio of the supply amount until the date of applying for registration falls under the date of applying for registration from the date of commencing the business shall be added to the tax amount to the tax amount to be paid or deducted from the tax amount to be refunded. In this case, the input tax amount before a business operator files an application for registration shall be deemed to be the input tax amount before the business operator files

Therefore, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff has operated a business after completing the registration of business as stated in its reasoning, and the defendant classified the amount of the input tax as unregistered business operator after cancelling the plaintiff's business registration ex officio based on the internal guidelines of the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office and applied the unregistered additional tax without deducting the amount of the input tax from the amount of the output tax, but the plaintiff continues to engage in the business, such input tax amount cannot be deemed to constitute "the input tax amount before filing the registration of business," which is one of the cases in which the above input tax amount was not deducted from the output tax amount, and if under the facts established in the above decision of the court below

2. In addition, business registration is established by submitting a business registration application to the head of the competent district tax office to report the business fact that the tax office intends to identify the person liable for tax payment and secure taxation data. If the business operator closes down or intends to start a new business and fails to start a business, the business operator should report the cancellation of registration or cancel it ex officio. Thus, if the defendant cancels the registration even though the business operator continues to conduct a business after completing business registration, the above cancellation of registration cannot be deemed a legitimate disposition.

3. However, the head of the competent district tax office only accepted a lawful application for registration of a business operator, and issued a business registration certificate, censorship, etc. is nothing more than an act of issuing a certificate verifying the registration or proving a business operator's report (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu156, Mar. 8, 198) and the cancellation, suspension, and closure of business, and it does not cause a change in the business operator's status, and therefore, the act of the tax office's ex officio cancellation, recovery of the business registration certificate, etc. cannot be deemed an administrative disposition, which is the object of objection. Accordingly, it is erroneous that the court below stated that the defendant's cancellation of the business operator's registration was an administrative disposition or it is a disposition of the invalidity of registration based on the invalid administrative guidelines. However, the court below rejected the deduction of the input tax amount or the defendant's taxation disposition, which imposed the non-registered additional tax, was all unlawful. Thus, the court below did not err in its conclusion that the above taxation disposition was unlawful.

In the opposite opinion, there is no reason or reason to argue that the disposition becomes final and conclusive, unless the plaintiff objects to the disposition on the premise that the cancellation of the above business registration is justifiable or that the cancellation of registration is an administrative disposition.

4. 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)