Suwon District Court-2012-Guhap7449 ( December 24, 2014)

The tax amount imposed on the Plaintiff is in violation of the substance over form principle.

The plaintiff is merely a person who lends his name to his Dong for the business of this case.

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

2015-Nu-556 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Request Value-Added Tax Correction

AA

O Head of tax office

2016.04.01

2016.29

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. As to the plaintiff

A. On November 22, 2011, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009, the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010, the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010, the OO for the second quarter of 2010, the value-added tax for the first quarter of 201, the OO for each claim for correction against the OO for the second quarter of 209, the additional tax for the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009, the additional tax for the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010, the additional tax for the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010, the additional tax for the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010, the additional tax for the value-added tax for the second quarter of 201, the additional tax for the O for the second quarter of 2011, the imposition of the additional tax for each O.

B. On October 5, 2011, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office’s rejection of an application for rectification against an OO of global income tax for the portion attributable to the year 2010 as of October 5, 201, and the imposition of an OO of an additional tax on global income tax for the portion attributable to the year 2010 as of August 3, 201, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal of the first instance court from the first instance court from the fourth to the 9th 21th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g., Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act,

2. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

ex officio, according to reference materials submitted by the Defendants on January 27, 2016, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the trial on January 27, 2016, upon receipt of an application for rectification of each of the value-added tax in the instant case, and revocation of the imposition of each of the additional tax in relation to each of the instant value-added tax in the instant case ex officio, and the head of the defendant OOP bank received an application for rectification of the instant global income tax in the instant global income tax and revoked ex officio the imposition of additional tax in relation to the instant global income tax in the instant global income tax on the same day. Thus, the instant lawsuit in the instant case was extinguished and sought for revocation of the non-existent disposition, and

2. 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 no longer be maintained, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act to the total cost of the lawsuit.