The case holding that the defect of the taxation disposition cannot be objectively seen as objectively clear, and thus, it is not null and void.

If the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Nonparty, etc. to operate a joint business and received notarial services, and the tax authority imposed the tax on the Plaintiff by recognizing the Plaintiff as a joint business proprietor under Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the said business based on the above contract, etc., even though the Plaintiff did not perform his/her duty of investment after the above business agreement and did not actually participate in the same business, and thus, there was a defect in misunderstanding that the Plaintiff was a joint business proprietor of the above tax disposition, such defect cannot be deemed objectively obvious in light of the circumstances of the above tax disposition, and thus, the above tax disposition cannot be deemed null

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 85Gu39 delivered on December 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) First, we examine the first ground for appeal.

If there is a defect in an administrative disposition, the defect must be serious and the existence of the defect must be objectively apparent (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu423, Feb. 13, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu378, Feb. 25, 1986). According to the legal reasoning of the court below, the plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with 6 non-party 1, etc. and 85Nu378, Feb. 25, 1986 to jointly operate ○○ Food Industry Co., Ltd., and entered into such agreement and signed such agreement and signed such agreement and signed such agreement with the notary public, and signed and sealed it as one of the partners, and the defendant decided to invest the plaintiff in the above business. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff did not perform his duty of investment after the above agreement, it cannot be seen that there was a defect in the taxation disposition at the time of a joint business without objectively misunderstanding the plaintiff's actual participation in the decision.

Therefore, since the taxation disposition at the time of the original adjudication cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, the judgment below to that purport is just and the ground of appeal No. 1, which is the purport of objection,

(2) The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the taxation disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course, and therefore, even if it constitutes abrupt invalidation as a matter of course, according to the macroficial evidence, the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 et al. make unnecessary family judgments by suggesting that such taxation disposition is recognized as a matter of course. As seen above, the main text of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the taxation disposition is null and void as a matter of course at the time of the original judgment cannot be accepted unless the judgment is justified, and even if there were errors as pointed out in the judgment of the court below at the time of the original judgment, this does not affect the judgment, and thus, the grounds of appeal Nos.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)