Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap34566 (2012.04.05)

Seocho 2009west 1673 (Law No. 19, 2011)

No person who is not a party to a judgment may serve as the ground for subsequent request for correction

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s remaining members, other than the parties to the instant judgment, by the instant key judgment, cannot be deemed as a case where a penalty is deemed null and void. Thus, the instant judgment does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent request for correction in relation to all members of the Plaintiff, other than the parties to the instant judgment.

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2012Nu1275 Revocation of revocation of request for rectification

AAras license Company

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap34566 decided April 5, 2012

October 17, 2012

November 14, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against reduction claims for reduction of value-added tax for the first period of December 15, 2008, value-added tax for the first period of 2001, value-added tax for the first period of 2001, and value-added tax for the second period of 201, for the second period of 2001, shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's ruling are as follows, and they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o 4th 9th 9th 000 won "(000 won recently paid, but 000 won was refunded, and 4th ).

o 10th (hereinafter referred to as the "value added tax of this case") is removed, and the "disposition of this case" that reduces 11th (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition").

0 The following shall be added to the fourth below:

[The object of the Defendant’s refusal of correction as of December 15, 2008 (the object of the Defendant’s refusal of correction as of July 19, 201, was reduced to the amount for which the Plaintiff seeks correction from the purport of the claim as the Defendant corrected a part of the amount of tax on July 19, 201, and the Defendant’s refusal of correction as of December 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

o 7. The following shall be added to the first fiveth place:

[No.4] The Plaintiff does not incur any loss on the ground that the value-added tax on the members who did not bring a lawsuit against the Plaintiff is not refunded, but rather, it is highly likely that the Plaintiff would have a substantial interest in value-added tax if it

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.