Busan District Court 2016Guhap23906 ( October 12, 2017)

Even if there is a defect in the disposition, it cannot be objectively clear, and it cannot be viewed as void as a matter of course.

(1) In a case where there are objective grounds to believe that a certain legal relation or factual basis, which is not subject to taxation, is subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified by accurately investigating the factual basis as to whether it is subject to taxation, then the unlawful taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation cannot be apparent even if the defect is serious, cannot be deemed as null and void as it is impossible to deem that the unlawful taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation requirements

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

2017Nu22152 Invalidity of the imposition of global income tax, etc.

AA

○○ Head of Tax Office et al.

Busan District Court Decision 2016Guhap23906 Decided May 12, 2017

November 8, 2017

December 6, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Purport of claim

Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s imposition of global income tax on the Plaintiff and imposition of transfer income tax on the attached table Nos. 1 and 2 against Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s order against the Plaintiff by Defendant ○○ Tax Office, confirm that the imposition of transfer income tax on the Plaintiff is invalid.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant ○○○ Tax Office confirmed that the imposition of global income tax on the Plaintiff and the imposition of capital gains tax on the attached table 1, 2, and 3 by Defendant ○○ Tax Office, as indicated in the attached table Nos. 1, 2, and 3 against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff is invalid (the Plaintiff filed an appeal only against the part seeking confirmation of the imposition of capital gains tax on the attached table Nos. 1, 2, and 3 among the judgment of the first instance court, and did not file an appeal against the part seeking confirmation of the imposition of capital gains tax on the attached table Nos. 4. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part for which the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, i.e.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows: (a) deleted the 3rd to 8th of the first instance judgment; and (b) deleted the 5th to 9th of the fifth to 10th of the judgment; and (c) as stated in the reasons for the first instance judgment except that the part "the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit" is written as follows; (d) therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

[Supplementary Use]

Therefore, the plaintiff's second argument is without merit. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that "the disposition of imposition of global income tax in this case is a serious defect, and such defect shall be deemed null and void even if it is not clear." However, the plaintiff's assertion that if the defect of the administrative disposition is serious, it shall be deemed null and void even if it is not clear."

We cannot accept (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du15125 decided Oct. 29, 2015).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of imposition Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3 should be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion, and all appeals against the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per