1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a representative of the C Cemetery located in the B B B B.

Around July 2011, the Defendant discovered the omission of a report on the purchase price of a cemetery and the amount of income related to management expenses through a tax investigation against the Plaintiff, and rendered a disposition imposing value-added tax, such as global income tax and value-added tax as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and the separate sheet No. 2, on September 1, 2011.

(2) Each disposition of this case (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (hereinafter “the ground for recognition”) did not dispute, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the entire argument of the argument of the plaintiff, the defendant, in light of the plaintiff’s operation of the C cemetery and the initial rent from the graveyard, etc., the plaintiff took each disposition of this case. Since the plaintiff did not obtain permission for the C cemetery from the Socheon-si City, some graveyard filed a complaint against the plaintiff, etc. or claimed compensation for damages, and the plaintiff paid damages, etc. corresponding to the initial rent to the above Burial

Therefore, among each disposition of this case, the part on the income equivalent to the first rent rent returned by the plaintiff to the graveyard became a premise.

As such, in the first place, among global income tax and value-added tax imposed pursuant to each of the dispositions of this case, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that there is no tax liability with regard to the portion imposed on the income equivalent to the first rent that the Plaintiff returned to the graveyard, and then seek the revocation of each disposition of this case.

First of all, the part concerning the primary claim among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate, the lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of liability for tax payment ex officio on the legitimacy of the primary claim among the lawsuit in this case and the lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of liability for tax payment is a lawsuit for a party to the legal relationship itself under public law. As such, the state, public entity and other rights parties to the legal relationship under Article 3 subparag. 2 and Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act are eligible for defendant.

(c).