The notification of the deferred payment without filing a report shall not be subject to a revocation lawsuit as well as a collection disposition.

In the case of a tax return method, if the taxpayer only files a return of tax base and amount of tax and fails to pay the amount of tax, and without any correction, notifies the tax authority to pay the same amount of tax as the reported amount without any correction as to the reported matters, it is not only a collection disposition for the collection of the determined

2013Guhap3285 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 10, 2014

April 24, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax on the first term portion of September 4, 2012 as KRW 15,649,750, and ② the second term value-added tax on October 1, 2012 as of October 1, 2012, ③ the second term value-added tax on the second term portion of March 7, 2013, KRW 7,826,390, and ④ the earned income tax on the March 3, 2013 as of May 3, 2013, KRW 1,085,710, and ⑤ the imposition of the retirement income tax on the second term portion of September 1, 2013 as of October 1, 2013, KRW 1,589,670, and KRW 670, and KRW 730,000 for the second term portion of the value-added tax on the second term portion of September 1, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff has completed business registration (business registration number: 000-00-000) with the trade name "○○ Food".

It is a relative.

B. According to the report made in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the above ○○ Food, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a tax payment notice of the amount of the first half-year value-added tax on September 4, 2012, 15,649,750 won, ② the amount of the second half-year value-added tax on October 4, 2012, ③ value-added tax on March 7, 2013 (7,826,390 won, ④ the amount of the second half-year value-added tax on March 7, 2013 (1,085,710 won, ⑤ the amount of the tax on the global income tax on August 7, 2013, 2012; and ③ the amount of the tax on the three-year tax payment notice of each of the instant tax payment notice of KRW 15,649,670 won, 670 won, 639, 159, 2013).

C. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on each of the instant tax notice, but was dismissed on January 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 10 evidence, Eul's 1 to 2 (including the number of pages) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff lent only the name to ○○ Food KimCC, the actual manager of ○○ Food, the Defendant’s taxation disposition was unlawful for the Plaintiff, who was not the actual business operator through each of the instant tax notice.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

(1) Since each tax amount of this case takes the method of tax return, the amount of tax is determined by the Plaintiff’s return. The Defendant’s issuance of a tax notice to pay the same amount as the reported tax amount without any correction is a collection disposition and cannot be deemed as a taxation disposition. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful.

The lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it did not pass through the pre-trial procedure or it was filed with the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit.

B. Determination

(1) In the case of taxation by method of filing a return, the tax liability is determined when the taxpayer files a return on the tax base and amount of tax with respect to the tax authority. Therefore, a taxpayer’s notification to pay the same amount of tax as the reported tax amount without any correction is merely a collection disposition for collecting the final tax, and cannot be deemed a tax disposition subject to revocation litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004).

According to the Luxembourg case, according to Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value-added tax and income tax, the tax amount of which the Plaintiff seeks its revocation, are the tax return method, and the taxpayer is obligated to pay the tax amount determined at the time of filing the tax base and tax amount. The fact that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to pay the same tax amount as the reported amount without any correction as to the reported matters is as seen earlier. Accordingly, this case is merely a tax obligation determined by the taxpayer’s filing act. Thus, the Defendant’s notice of tax payment cannot be deemed a tax disposition subject to revocation lawsuit. Thus, it is separate from the Plaintiff’s filing of a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the ground that each of the instant tax notice was erroneous on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a disposition subject to revocation disposition, and thus, it is unlawful to seek revocation of the disposition that does not exist (if the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the ground that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.