Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap28202 ( October 18, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du4071 ( October 31, 2011)

The defect in the notice of change in the amount of income is only a ground for revocation, and shall not be deemed a ground for revocation.

Even if the determination by the disposition authority on the person to whom the service price belongs was erroneous, such defect is only a ground for revocation of the notification of change in the amount of income, and cannot be deemed a ground for invalidation. Thus, unless it is null and void as a matter of course, it cannot be deemed unlawful for the disposition of collection by the tax authority on the ground that it fails to perform

2012Nu18549. Revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

AAA technology investment company

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap28202 decided May 18, 2012

February 26, 2013

March 8, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of collecting KRW 000 of the earned income tax on the source of income accrued in 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the following two (2) cases, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

From the fourth sentence through the 19th sentence of the first instance court, the tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any factual basis, such as legal relations, income, or act subject to taxation, is significant and obvious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relations or fact which is not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the facts, whether it is subject to taxation or not is subject to taxation, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal disposition that misleads the facts subject to taxation is void automatically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the determination of the tax disposition is invalid as to whether it is invalid, and whether it is equivalent to the plaintiff company's representative of the health management consulting service contract, and whether it belongs to any person who actually operates the service, and if so, it can be seen that it belongs to the plaintiff company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the processed water disposition of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as this conclusion and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.