beta
Text
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who was the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (the closure of business on August 26, 2010; hereinafter “B”).
From November 6, 2015 to December 5, 2015, the Defendant conducted a tax offense investigation following the notification of taxation data by the director of the Namcheon Tax Office, and determined that B, in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009, an amount equivalent to KRW 121,704,440, a total of three tax invoices received from sampling industry development, shall be deemed false tax invoices. On February 1, 2016, B corrected and notified the amount of KRW 27,497,890, and corporate tax of KRW 27,307,130 in 209 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax”), and notified the Plaintiff of the change in income amount (including value-added tax) as bonus in 209.
(B) The notice of the change in the income amount for the income earner was also given to the plaintiff.
B With respect to the imposition of value-added tax, corporate tax and notice of change in income amount on April 20, 2016, B filed a tax appeal on July 27, 2016, but was dismissed on November 28, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, on January 1, 2017, the Defendant imposed a global income tax of 30,113,650 won (including additional tax of 6,540,251 won) on the Plaintiff’s amount of income disposed of as bonus as above.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-4, Eul 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case 1) since the counterpart to the disposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case is not the plaintiff but B, the plaintiff has no standing to sue to seek revocation of the above disposition. 2) According to the above basic facts, the counterpart to the disposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case can be recognized as B, and otherwise, the plaintiff was notified to pay the above value-added tax and the corporate