In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively and objectively clear that its defect has violated important laws and regulations.

There are objective reasons to believe that each taxation cause belongs to the plaintiff, and that the taxpayer is not the plaintiff can only be aware of the fact-finding that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there is a defect in the grounds for invalidation since the defect cannot be seen as apparent in appearance.

2016Guhap1264. Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax

KimA

BB Head of tax office et al.

August 11, 2016

o October 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 789,190 on April 15, 1995, the disposition of imposition of KRW 27,968,230 on global income tax of KRW 10,672,560 on March 31, 1996, the disposition of imposition of KRW 10,672,560 on global income tax of KRW 1,414,30 on May 16, 1994, the disposition of imposition of KRW 802,410 on global income tax of KRW 802,410 on August 16, 1994, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 5,497,570 on global income tax of KRW 16,570 on May 16, 1995, the disposition of imposition of KRW 137,194 on global income tax of KRW 196,196 on May 16, 1992, the disposition of imposition of KRW 19637.196

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Each of the main points indicated below (hereinafter referred to as "each of the main points of this case") has been registered in the name of the plaintiff.

B. Each of the main points of this case is a taxation on the operation of each of the main points of this case and the transfer of a store. Defendant AAB director of the tax office imposed 789,190 won on April 15, 1995; Defendant BB director of the tax office imposed 27,968,230 won on March 31, 1996; global income tax amounting to 10,672,560 won on April 30, 1996; Defendant CCC director of the tax office imposed 1,414,300 won on May 16, 1994; capital gains tax amounting to 802,410 won on August 16, 1994; global income tax amounting to 5,497,570 won on May 16, 1995; and Defendant DD director of the tax office imposed 130 won on May 16, 1992;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

A person who actually operated each main point of this case is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff lent his name to another person, including △△△, △△△, and △△. Each of the dispositions of this case is related to the operation of each main point of this case and the transfer of the store operated by another person, and thus, it shall not be imposed on the Plaintiff under the principle of substantial taxation. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is null and void because

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

In order for the taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegal cause, and the defect is an important violation of laws and regulations, and it should be objectively and objectively apparent.

A tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or fact-finding (income or act) shall be significant and apparent. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or fact-finding which is not subject to taxation, if it is evident whether it is subject to taxation or not, and if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relations, it cannot be deemed apparent even if the defect is serious, and in such a case, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation is void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu10862, Nov. 27, 1990).

2) In the instant case:

Even if the plaintiff actually operated each of the main points of this case, such as the plaintiff's assertion, it is reasonable to view that there exist objective circumstances to believe that each of the main points of this case was registered under the plaintiff's name as to each of the main points of this case, and that each of the causes of taxation by the operation of each main points of this case and the transfer of the store belongs to the plaintiff, and that the taxpayer is not the plaintiff. Thus, it is obvious that the defect is not the plaintiff. Thus, it is not clear that the defect is external.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there are defects falling under the grounds for invalidation of each of the dispositions in this case. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.