The defect in each disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be serious.

The part seeking the revocation of each disposition of this case is illegal after the period for filing a lawsuit expires, and it cannot be deemed that any defect exists in each disposition of this case.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court 2018Guhap65102

00

00. Head of tax office

January 9, 2019

January 30, 2019

1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' preliminary claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, each imposition of KRW 0 of the value-added tax on October 6, 2008 against the plaintiffs on 2006, KRW 0 of the value-added tax on 1, 2007, KRW 0 of the global income tax on 2006, KRW 0 of the global income tax on 2007, KRW 0 of the global income tax on 2007, KRW 0 of the global income tax on 2006, and KRW 0 of the global income tax on 2006 for 207 shall be revoked.

Preliminaryly, confirming that each of the above dispositions is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs, as married couple, closed their business registration to operate a general construction work under the trade name of the Plaintiff’s business on July 15, 2006, with the Plaintiff’s name as PSS, and closed their business “EL” on November 22, 2006 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “EL before it is converted into a corporation”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant business”). However, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiffs, with the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 200,000,000 from KRW 154-16 to KRW 30,000,000,000 from each of the above construction work prices of KRW 60,000,000 from KRW 20,000,000 from KRW 60,000 from each of the construction prices of the Plaintiff’s 60,000,000,000 won from each of the above construction prices of KRW 3600,5,0065,000.

C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an objection with the Central Tax Office on January 2, 2009, but the Central Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiffs’ above objection on June 26, 2009, and the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 28, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on September 1, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs did not report the value-added tax and global income tax on the accused's accusation case filed by the defendant that violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure of the plaintiffs to report the value-added tax and global income tax (the crime was not recognized), and the plaintiff KS, the wife of KS, did not actually operate the company of this case, and the plaintiff KS did not gain profits through the execution of each construction of this case, and the plaintiff KS incurred losses, and did not report the value-added tax and global income tax on the ground of the occurrence of defects in the construction of the construction, and did not intentionally fail to report. Accordingly, the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case was sought, and it is important and clear that each of the dispositions of this case was invalid.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

4. Judgment on the main claim

According to Article 56(2) and (3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010), an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts may, in principle, not be instituted without going through a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, and a request for evaluation or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the decision on

Therefore, the facts that the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' request on September 1, 2010 against the plaintiffs' request for adjudication are acknowledged as above. Since the facts that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case to the effect that the plaintiffs sought revocation of each of the dispositions of this case on April 18, 2018 are apparent in the record, the main part of the plaintiffs' request for revocation of each of the dispositions of this case among the lawsuits of this case is filed after the expiration of the filing period, and thus, it is unlawful.

5. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. Relevant legal principles

In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient to be deemed to be in violation of laws and regulations, the defect is objectively obvious, and it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations that serve as the basis for the taxation disposition in question from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself. From this point of view, in a case where there is an objective circumstance that makes it clear that a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations that are subject to taxation is subject to taxation, and it is possible to accurately examine the factual relation as to any legal relations or factual relations that are not subject to taxation, and it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition that misleads the facts of taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu12634, Jun. 26, 199; 208Du18481, Feb. 28, 20094).

B. Determination

Based on the above legal principles, the facts that Plaintiff PS was a business operator of the instant business from July 15, 2006 to November 22, 2006 are acknowledged as above. The following facts are acknowledged as follows: Plaintiff PS applied for the registration of the instant business directly concerning the instant business, namely, the lease agreement on the instant business establishment was concluded in the name of Plaintiff PS, and the Plaintiff’s report of the business closure was made directly by the Plaintiff’s PSS’s business operator, and it was not clear that Plaintiff’s business establishment was partially input or withdrawn with the deposit account in Plaintiff PS’s name, and each of the instant PS business owner and the Plaintiff’s subcontracting did not know that each of the instant dispositions of the instant case could not be objectively acknowledged as having been conducted by the Plaintiff’s respective circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain the Plaintiff’s each of the instant PS business operation requirements, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant dispositions of the instant case could not be objectively acknowledged as having been made.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' main claim in the lawsuit of this case is both unlawful and dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.