Even if a tax notice was not served, there is no ground for invalidation of the disposition.

Since a business entity is registered under the name of a party, the tax authority has objective circumstances to mislead the party as a taxpayer who operates the business. Unlike the registration of the business entity, the fact that the party is not the actual business can only be clarified when investigating the facts accurately. Thus, the disposition cannot be deemed null and void.

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the service method of documents

2015Nu45115. Invalidity of a disposition imposing value-added tax

Except for the 6th measure, "each measure" is referred to.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 9, 10

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

2. Judgment on the main safety defense against the collection disposition of the value-added tax of this case

The defendant does not affect the plaintiff's rights and obligations in the collection of the value-added tax of this case.

No benefit is asserted.

(1) If a notice of tax payment regarding taxation has been served in violation of the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

To the extent legitimate, the service does not take effect and the taxation disposition is invalid (Supreme Court Decision 195 delivered on 195).

8. The collection disposition is also null and void if the service of the document is illegal and void. If the collection disposition becomes null and void, the defendant cannot continue the disposition on default on the premise of the disposition on default. Thus, the defendant cannot be held to have no benefit in the lawsuit in this case where the validity of the service of each of the dispositions of this case is disputed. Accordingly, the defendant cannot be held to have no benefit in the lawsuit.

This defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 13, 2009, the instant enterprise as its representative and operates the Plaintiff’s business under the name of the Plaintiff.

An application for registration was made.

(2) On July 20, 2009, July 20, 2009, the date of the business opening of the instant company, the plaintiff and the heado reported marriage 200

6. 9. 5. 후이고, 이 사건 사업체의 폐업일 2011. 6. 30.은 원고와 장ㅇㅇ 사이에 이혼

에 관한 재판상 화해가 성립한 2011. 4. 7. 직후이며, 장ㅇㅇ는 이 사건 사업체 폐업

후에도 계속하여 이 사건 사업체의 소재지에서 동생 장AA 명의로 'ㅇㅇㅇㅇ퍼니처'라

shall operate a household manufacturing enterprise.

(3) The land in which the instant business entity is located from the commencement date of the business to the closure date of the business; and

건물은 모두 장ㅇㅇ의 소유였다가 현재는 임의경매로 인하여 장AA의 남편 김ㅇㅇ에

is the transfer of name.

(4) 이 사건 사업체 운영 과정에서 이루어진 거래처(AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK 등)와의 금전거래에 장ㅇㅇ의 계좌가 사용되었고, 장ㅇㅇ는 이 사건 사업체명의의 세금계산서(2009. 6. 30.자부터 2011. 6. 30.자까지 총 56매)를 작성하였다.

(5) 이 사건 사업체의 직원이었던 한OO은 장ㅇㅇ가 이 사건 사업체를 실제로 운

Written evidence(A No. 7) was written to the effect that he/she received a written confirmation.

(6) Meanwhile, from December 17, 2007 to the location of the instant company, the Plaintiff was subject to a move-in report from December 17, 2007.

주하다가 장ㅇㅇ의 외도로 인한 가정불화로 2010. 2. 17. OOO시 OO동 OO-O 소재 OO아파트 O동 OOO호에 전입신고를 하였고, 2010. 8. 31. 장ㅇㅇ를 상대로 이혼소송을 제기하였다.

(7) The Defendant issued a tax payment notice of the instant first disposition on March 18, 2010, and the instant second disposition on around October 2010.

A tax notice on December 9, 2010, a tax notice on the third disposition of this case was served on March 14, 201, a tax notice on the fourth disposition of this case was served on April 11, 201, and a tax notice on the fifth disposition of this case was served on April 11, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, 11 to 14, Eul evidence 1, 5 and 7 (each)

Each entry, including branch numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. The assertion and determination that the service of each disposition of this case is null and void

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's service of each disposition of this case is illegal because it was not served with a notice for tax payment.

Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case is null and void.

(2) Determination

㈎ 과세처분의 상대방인 납세의무자 등 서류의 송달을 받을 자가 다른 사람에게 우편물 기타 서류의 수령권한을 명시적 또는 묵시적으로 위임한 경우에는 그 수임자가 해당 서류를 수령함으로써 그 송달받을 자 본인에게 해당 서류가 적법하게 송달된 것으로 보아야 하고, 그러한 수령권한을 위임받은 자는 반드시 위임인의 종업원이거나 동거인일 필요가 없다(대법원 2004. 7. 9. 선고 2004두3717 판결 참조). 한편, 납세고지서가 명의차용자의 사업장을 송달장소로 하여 명의차용자나 그의 종업원에게 송달된 것이라면, 그 송달의 효과는 명의대여자에게도 미친다(대법원 1989. 7. 11. 선고

88Nu12110, see, e.g., Decision 88Nu1210

㈏ 살피건대, 위 법리에 비추어 위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음 ① 내지 ③사정들을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 장ㅇㅇ에게 명의를 대여함으로써, 납세고지서 등의 서류 수령권한을 장ㅇㅇ나 그의 종업원에게 명시적 또는 묵시적으로 위임한 것으로 볼 수 있으므로, 피고가 이 사건 각 처분의 납세고지서를 이 사건 사업체의 소재지에 송달한 것은 모두 적법하다.

① 이 사건 사업체를 실질적으로 운영한 자는 장ㅇㅇ로 보이나, 원고가 자신의 남편인 장ㅇㅇ에게 이 사건 사업체에 관한 명의를 대여하여 장ㅇㅇ가 원고 명의로 이 사건 사업체를 운영한 것으로 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 원고는 사업자등록 당시 이 사건 사업체가 자신의 명의로 운영되는 것임이 알았다고 보인다. 원고는 당심 변론진행 중에 이 사건 사업자등록신청서(을 제7호증)에 대하여 성립인정한 점도 이에 부합한다.

② Business registration of the instant company was made on July 13, 2009, at the time of such business registration.

이미 원고가 장ㅇㅇ의 외도 사실을 알게되어 혼인관계가 파탄에 이르러(원고는 장ㅇㅇ

The name of the business entity in this case was the name of the business entity in this case against B, who filed a divorce lawsuit on August 31, 2010.

남편인 장ㅇㅇ에게 대여하지 않았다고 볼 자료는 없고, 설령 혼인관계가 그 당시 파탄

에 이르렀다고 하더라도 혼인관계에 있던 원고가 남편인 장ㅇㅇ에게 이 사건 사업체의

It is difficult to regard the lending of the business name as a non-existent point in view of the empirical rule.

③ Even if the Plaintiff knew that there was a taxation disposition, etc., Switzerland

of the same external appearance as he/she operates his/her business after the registration of his/her name;

A person released shall be liable for a given portion of his appearance, in which case the person shall be liable.

Even if the person who delegated the authority to receive the documents asserts the substance over form principle and received the documents.

may not be denied.

D. The assertion and determination that each of the dispositions of this case is invalid against the substance over form principle.

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

이 사건 사업체를 실제로 운영한 사람은 원고가 아닌 장ㅇㅇ인바, 납세의무

Each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff, which did not exist, is null and void as it violates the substance over form principle.

(2) Determination

㈎ 신고납세방식을 채택하고 있는 취득세에 있어서 과세관청이 납세의무자

(1) The collection of an order to pay acquisition tax shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive by filing a report;

In the event of a disposition, even if there is a defect in the taxpayer’s filing of the report, the defect

Succession to the collection disposition, which is a subsequent disposition, unless it falls under the grounds for invalidation as a matter of course.

neither is it (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14394, Sept. 8, 2006). Meanwhile, a taxable object is subject to taxation.

misunderstanding that any legal relation or fact which is not subject to taxation is taxable.

In the event that there are objective circumstances, whether it is subject to taxation or not, in fact,

If it is possible to conduct an accurate investigation, it is found that the defect is serious.

Since it is not clear that it is not possible to say that it is a taxation disposition that misleads the fact of tax requirements as such; and

No annual invalidation cannot be deemed to be an invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002; 201Du22723, Oct. 23, 2012).

㈏ 위 법리에 비추어 살피건대, 이 사건 사업체는 원고 명의로 사업자 등록이

Since the tax authority is responsible for the mistake of the plaintiff as the taxpayer who operated the business of this case.

There is objective reason to do so, and unlike the registration of a business, the plaintiff is actually an actual entrepreneur.

The circumstance that it was not a matter of fact can only be revealed that the facts should be accurately examined;

As long as the act of reporting value-added tax in this case cannot be deemed as serious and clear defects, the plaintiff can not be seen as the plaintiff.

As to the collection disposition of value-added tax of this case and the imposition disposition of penalty tax of this case, it can be viewed that the disposition is void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is inappropriate differently, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff is revoked.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

MaA

the director of the tax office

January 15, 2016

January 29, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Total costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff. The purport of the claim is that the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 752,470 on March 8, 201 against the Plaintiff and imposition of additional tax of KRW 9,481 on KRW 2,480 on KRW 376,230 on April 1, 201, imposition of value-added tax of KRW 376,230 on KRW 1,00 on KRW 565,30 on KRW 2,00 on December 6, 2010, imposition of additional tax of KRW 7,122 on KRW 1,275,830 on KRW 2,00 on KRW 2,00 on KRW 2,00 on KRW 2,00, KRW 1,275,830 on KRW 16,075 on KRW 10 on March 8, 201, and imposition of additional tax on KRW 1,011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 20 to June 30, 201, from July 20, 2009 to June 30, 201, the business entity registered a household manufacturing business with the location of o-O-O (hereinafter “instant business entity”). B. The Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return and did not pay the value-added tax to the Plaintiff during the period from February 2, 2009 to January 1, 201, and the Defendant issued a disposition to collect the value-added tax and impose the penalty tax as listed below.

Details of collection disposition of value-added tax and imposition disposition of additional tax.

- 3- On April 1, 2010, the part concerning the disposition of this case No. 376,2300, which was revoked on December 6, 2010, pursuant to the second disposition No. 3 of this case No. 565,307,122, which was revoked on March 8, 2010, pursuant to the second disposition No. 5 of this case No. 4 of this case, 1,275,830 16,075 of this case, and 920,000, which was revoked on April 1, 2011, the part concerning the disposition of this case No. 6 of this case, which was revoked ex officio on September 1, 2011 (which was finalized) and revoked on September 1, 2011 (which was revoked on September 1, 201, 1, 4708, 463168, etc. of this case).