The plaintiff should be notified in advance before the revocation of this case, and the plaintiff's opinion should be heard, but it is illegal not to implement it.

Considering the fact that the lease contract on the instant workplace was terminated lawfully, the Plaintiff lost the status of a tenant with respect to the instant workplace, and that the Plaintiff bears the duty to file a report on the closure of business registration regarding the instant workplace in accordance with the final and conclusive judgment in the relevant case, it cannot be deemed that there is a benefit to seek revocation of ex officio cancellation from the Plaintiff.

Article 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Guhap729 Business Operator Cancellation of Registration (Closure of Business)

권@@

*The Director of the Tax Office

April 26, 2018

May 17, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

In June 26, 2017, the disposition of cancellation of the business registration (business closure) made by the former Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2017 is revoked.

1. Details of the instant case

피고는 2016. 9. 5. 원고의 신청에 따라 상호를 '■△▲▽▼☆★○●'로, 개업일을 2016. 6. 15.로, 사업장 소재지를 인천 @구 @@@로 *, ***, ***호(이하 '이사건 사업장'이라 한다)로, 사업의 종류를 일반음식점으로 하는 내용의 원고 명의의 사업자등록을 하고, 원고에게 사업자등록증을 발급하였다.

On March 22, 2017, upon receipt of an application for new business registration with the content that the instant place of business is the location of the instant place of business, the Defendant confirmed that the delivery of the instant place of business was executed according to the judgment on March 22, 2017, and on June 26, 2017, on the ground that the reason for cancellation of the business registration was the business owner’s failure, and on March 22, 2017, the date of cancellation was the business registration under the name of the Plaintiff on the instant place of business (hereinafter “ex officio cancellation”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video, and purport of the whole pleading

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act because it did not comply with the Plaintiff’s opinion despite having to notify the Plaintiff in advance prior to the revocation of the instant case and hear the Plaintiff’s opinion. Thus, the ex officio cancellation of the instant case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 8 (Registration of Business)

(1) Any business operator shall file an application for business registration with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business within 20 days from the commencement date of the business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That any person who intends to commence a new business may file an application for business

(5) The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business in receipt of an application under paragraphs (1) through (4) (referring to the head office or principal office in cases of paragraphs (3) and (4); hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall make business registration and issue a certificate of registration with the serial number assigned (hereinafter referred to as a business registration certificate), including the registered business operator as prescribed by Presidential Decree

(6) If a business operator registered pursuant to paragraph (5) suspends or closes his/her business or changes registered matters, he/she shall report without delay to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The same shall also apply where any person who has applied for registration

(7) Where a business operator registered under paragraph (5) falls under any of the following, the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business shall cancel business registration without delay:

1. Where it closes its business;

(10) Except as otherwise expressly provided for in paragraphs (1) through (9), matters necessary for registration of business, issuance of business registration certificates, alteration of registered matters, cancellation of registration, etc. shall

Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) Where an entrepreneur who has registered his/her business pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8 (1) of the Act and paragraphs (3) through (5) of the same Article, suspends or closes his/her business, or where a person who has registered his/her business pursuant to the proviso to Article 8 (1) of the Act and paragraph (5) of the same Article, actually fails to commence his/her business, he/she shall, without delay, submit (including submission via the national tax information and communications network) a report on suspension or closure stating the following matters to the head of the competent tax office (referring to any of the

1. Personal information of the business operator;

2. Date of business suspension or closure, and the grounds therefor;

3. Other reference information.

C. Determination

갑 제3호증, 을 제1, 2호증의 기재 및 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 이 사건 사업장의 전소유자인 한@@가 2016. 8. 24. 원고를 상대로 이 사건 사업장에 관한 임대차계약을 해지함을 전제로 이 사건 사업장의 인도, 연체차임 지급 및 차임 상당 부당이득의 반환, 영업신고 및 사업자등록 폐업신고절차 이행을 구하는 소(이하 '관 련사건'이라 한다)를 제기하였는데, 2017. 2. 15. 이 사건 사업장에 관한 한@@와 원고사이의 임대차계약이 원고의 차임 연체 등을 이유로 적법하게 해지되었음을 전제로 '원고는 한@@에게 이 사건 사업장을 인도하고, 차임 및 차임 상당 부당이득금을지 급하고, 영업신고 및 사업자등록에 관한 폐업신고절차를 이행하라'는 내용의 제1심 판결[인천지방법원 2016가단237386(본소), 2016가단59869(반소)]이 선고되었고, 2017. 11.23. 원고의 임대차보증금 공제 주장에 따라 원고의 금전 지급의무의 범위만을 임대차보증금이 전액 공제된 후의 차임 상당 부당이득금으로 변경하는 내용의 항소심 판결[인천지방법원 2017나55346(본소), 2017나55353(반소)]이 선고되었으며, 2018. 4. 12.원고의 상고를 기각하는 상고심 판결[대법원 2018다202637(본소), 2018다 202644(반소)]이 선고된 사실, ② 이 사건 사업장에 대하여 2017. 3. 22. 위 제1심 판결에 따라 인도 집행이 이루어진 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

이 사건 사업장에 관한 한@@와 원고 사이의 임대차계약이 이미 적법하게 해지됨에 따라 원고는 이 사건 사업장에 관한 임차인으로서의 지위를 상실하였고, 그 임대차계약의 해지에 따른 원고의 임대차보증금도 연체 차임 및 차임 상당 부당이득금에 전액 충당되어 더 이상 남아 있지 않은 것으로 보이는 점, 원고가 관련사건에서 확정된 판결에 따라 한@@에 대하여 이 사건 사업장에 관한 사업자등록의 폐업신고절차를 이행할 의무를 부담하고 있는 점 등을 고려하면, 원고에게 이 사건 직권말소의 취소를 구할 이익이 있다고 볼 수 없다.

3. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.