Busan District Court 2012Guhap1786 (24 August 2012)

No identity theft can be recognized and even if it is recognized, it does not constitute invalid.

It cannot be deemed that the name has been stolen, and even if the name has been recognized as fraudulent, it does not constitute a case where it is evident that the registered matters of real estate, which served as the basis of the disposition, lack of appearance or lack of objective authenticity, and it does not constitute a case where it is apparent whether there is a defect to accurately investigate the facts.

2012Nu303 Nullification of a taxation disposition

CivilAAA

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap1786 Decided August 24, 2012

March 27, 2013

May 1, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On July 3, 2009, the defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) against the plaintiff on July 3, 200 is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

In addition to adding the following, the court's reasoning for this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be added; and

Where any defect exists in the plaintiff's administrative disposition, if it is objectively apparent even if the defect is serious, the disposition cannot be deemed null and void, and if it is obvious that the material based on the misunderstanding of the facts cannot be found objectively, or that its establishment or authenticity cannot be found objectively. If it can be found only when it is necessary to accurately investigate the material of the facts, it cannot be deemed that such defect is apparent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6863, Apr. 28, 1992). It is obvious that the disposition of the plaintiff's real estate is invalid under the name of the plaintiff, even if it is obvious that it is not subject to taxation, and it is not obvious that it constitutes an unlawful disposition of the plaintiff's real estate under the name of the plaintiff, such as lack of ownership, even if it is apparent that it is not subject to taxation, and it constitutes an unlawful disposition of the plaintiff's real estate under the name of the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2863, supra.).

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.