If a service is not provided for business purposes, and it is not a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act;

If the mother operates the automobile maintenance business of a real estate acquired by a child while living together with his/her infant and his/her mother raises school expenses or such for children, it cannot be deemed that a child who is a joint member of the household has provided real estate rental services to a mother who is a specially related person for business purposes, and thus, is not liable to pay value-added tax.

Article 2 of Value-Added Tax Act

Park, Park Jae-in, Park Park

The director of Busan District Office

The lawsuit of the plaintiff Park Jae-chul shall be dismissed.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 3,01,00 for the first, second, 1981 for each of 1,200 for each of 1,612,00 for each of 1,202 for each of 1,200 for each of 1982 for each of 1,200 for each of 1,612,00 for each of 1,203 for each of 1983 for each of 1,616,200 for each of 1,200 for each of 1,294 for each of 1,204 for each of 1,783,719 for each, and 1,816,184 for each of 1,1985 shall be revoked.

Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiff Park Jae-min and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff, the plaintiff Park Jae-gu and the part arising between the defendant.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the disposition of imposition of Paragraph (2) of this Article.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the non-party 1 who is the plaintiff's mother shall be issued with the notice of tax payment 1 through 9 (each tax payment notice), Article 10, 11, 16 (each tax investigation document), Article 13, 14 (Register of Land), and Article 17 (Report of 17) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not apply to the non-party 1 who is the plaintiff's mother from July 28, 1972, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (3/5 of the non-party 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act; 2/5 of the shares of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 1 who is the plaintiff 5's mother-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the non-party 3 of the non-party 2 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not apply to the non-party 1 and 3 of the above Enforcement Decree.

The plaintiffs, on November 12, 1965, succeeded to the above site and building due to the death of the non-party Park Jong-jin, but they did not have management ability as minors at that time, and thus, they did not manage the automobile maintenance business in the above site and building that are the plaintiffs' property, and did not manage the relevant property. However, the defendant asserts that the disposition of value-added tax imposed on the above non-party Park Jong-jin was unlawful and revoked.

First, prior to the judgment on the grounds for plaintiff Park Jae-min's argument, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case was made ex officio, and it was recognized as above that the taxpayer was indicated in the notice of tax payment (No. 1-9 of the above evidence No. 1-1 to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff Park Jae-min was not served only on the plaintiff, and it was not served on the plaintiff Park Jae-min. Therefore, the "non-party 1" of this case's taxation disposition of this case is not known (refer to Supreme Court Decision 83Nu21 delivered on March 13, 1984). In relation to the plaintiff Park Jae-min, it is clear that there was no separate taxation disposition and there was no administrative disposition to be subject to the revocation lawsuit, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff Park Jae-min did not seek revocation of the taxation disposition of this case as the relation between the plaintiff Park Jae-chul and the plaintiff Park Jae-in's joint interest relationship under Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff Park Jae-soo-in-sik's interest relationship 2 of this case can not be viewed as effective.

Then, we examine the plaintiffs' claims for Park Jong-chul, and examine the above Eul's 13,14,17 evidence No. 6-2, Gap evidence No. 7, Gap evidence No. 8-2, and testimony of witness No. 8-2. If we look at the whole purport of oral argument, we would like to recognize that the plaintiffs' mother's above decoration was deceased on Nov. 12, 1965, and the above 4 children's husband's above son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

Therefore, the lawsuit of the plaintiff Park Jae-min shall be dismissed as illegal and illegal. The claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the above taxation disposition by the plaintiff Park Jae-chul shall be accepted as reasonable, and the burden of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Shin Sung-si (Presiding Judge)