(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2017.06.15 2017가합136

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2017.06.15 2017가합136

실 사업자 확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 2002, the Plaintiff completed business registration with respect to the instant workplace in the name of the Plaintiff on September 14, 2002 following the Defendant’s request for the name lending, and the Defendant actually operated the said workplace from around that time.

B. The Defendant failed to pay value-added tax, earned income tax, global income tax, etc. while operating the instant business establishment, and the amount in arrears reaches KRW 144,091,360.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the tax in arrears as above, but the Defendant did not pay the said tax in arrears until now, as it was the next day.

Therefore, in order to prove that the obligor of the tax related to the instant workplace is the Defendant, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the substantive entrepreneur of the period stated in the claim is the Defendant.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, determination by the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s apprehension and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). The Plaintiff’s seek in this case is merely a confirmation of facts that the Plaintiff was the actual business operator of the instant workplace, and is not a specific right or legal relationship subject to the lawsuit for confirmation.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff was sentenced to the above confirmation judgment, its effect does not reach the tax office, which was the third party, and thus, it cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute in this case, and thus, there is no interest

(The plaintiff is not the actual business operator, and the tax disposition is illegal through administrative litigation. 3.

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 2. 25. 선고 2009다93299 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.03.26 2014가합4733

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.06.07 2017가합216

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.05.28 2014가합4559

-서울동부지방법원 2014.06.20 2013가합17474

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.02.16 2016가합627