logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.08.11 2015가단5479
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for business registration with the date of commencement of the business as “the date of March 2, 2001”, “the wholesale retail”, and “building materials”. On the same day, the head of Seoincheon District Tax Office issued a business registration certificate with the registration number as “121-81-43299” to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s application on the same day.

B. On May 16, 201, the Plaintiff reported the suspension period from May 16, 201 to November 13, 201 from the same date, and was treated as automatically resumed from November 14, 201, the day following the expiration date of the suspension period.

C. However, on December 20, 201, the director of the Seocheon District Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff was not operating the business in light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not have a place of business at the place of business on the business registration and did not pay taxes in arrears, and revoked the Plaintiff’s business registration on November 14, 201, following the expiration date of the business suspension period.

(hereinafter referred to as “ex officio cancellation of the business registration of this case”).

On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that the head of Seocheon District Tax Office’s ex officio cancellation of the instant business registration (the early 2013 medium 10999), and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the instant business registration ex officio revocation by the head of Seocheon District Tax Office on the grounds that it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have closed its business after the expiration of the period of closure on May 3, 2013.

E. After July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff had registered the Plaintiff again, but the Plaintiff reported the closure of business on August 20, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 4, 5, and Eul No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's gist of the plaintiff's assertion was completed with various utility model registration and patent registration, and was engaged in the business of producing the hot-projected floor of residential floor. However, the plaintiff's office, which is the competent administrative agency, has been notified of the fact.

arrow