Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap29304 ( October 30, 2012)

Seocho 2010Ch2498 ( October 14, 2011)

It is not sufficient to recognize that there is a defect that the notice of change in the amount of income falls under the void of a year.

Inasmuch as it is insufficient to recognize that the notice of change in the amount of income constitutes a void as a matter of course, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case, which constitutes the disposition of collection, is unlawful, cannot be accepted as long as there is a defect that can be seen as a ground

2012Nu11869, revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap29304 decided March 30, 2012

October 18, 2012

November 8, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s notice disposition of KRW 000 in the business year 2008, which was issued to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2010, exceeded KRW 000, and the part of the notice disposition of KRW 000 in the business year 2009, which exceeded KRW 00,000, among the notice disposition of KRW 000 in the business year 209, respectively, is revoked

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Among the notification disposition of the tax withholding tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2008 that the defendant against the plaintiff on March 5, 2010, the part exceeding KRW 000 for the notification disposition of KRW 00 for the business year 200 and the part exceeding KRW 00 for the notification disposition of KRW 00 for the business year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff also asserts that the "amount of tax payment" in this case is obviously defective in holding the plaintiff's assets as the claim for damages against leapA, and that the defendant disposed of the plaintiff's assets as the plaintiff's representative KimB's outflow. In addition, the "expenses for acquiring business rights of this case" also constitutes the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in connection with his business, and thus, the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is unlawful on the premise that KimB would use the above amount as a stability for his personal debt payment. Thus, it is clear that the tax authority's disposition and the change in the amount of income should be notified on the 20th day of receiving the notice on the change in amount of income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2000, supra., Supreme Court Decision 200Du10620, supra. Thus, if the tax office's notice on the change in amount of income becomes invalid, it cannot be viewed that it does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal 20.

However, according to the various circumstances cited earlier, the Plaintiff did not dispute the notice of changes in the amount of income of this case after the prescribed appeal period has elapsed, and the disposition of this case constitutes a collection disposition, and only dispute the specific contents of each of the notice of changes in the amount of income of this case without any separate assertion as to the inherent defects in the disposition of this case.

Therefore, considering the existence of the grounds for invalidation as a matter of course in the notice of change in the income amount of this case where the defect in the disposition of this case is transmitted, KimB stated that the above tax invoice was false at the time of the tax investigation following the receipt of the processed sales tax invoice of this case related to the issue amount (00 won), and that the fund management related to the receipt was made in accordance with the orders of KimB (record 82 pages), and that the loan was made in 00 won as to the place of use of the issue amount, and that the loan borrowed in the name of KimB from the Plaintiff and its affiliated company, KimB, KimB Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff and its affiliated company, stated that the loan amount of KRW 00 as the personal funds of KimB was treated as an anti-restricted amount (record 83 pages), and that the Plaintiff stated differently from the place of use of the issue amount claimed in this court. In light of the various circumstances cited earlier, it is not reasonable to find that the above evidence and evidence were insufficient to deem that there were any defects in the above.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking revocation of the instant disposition, on the ground that it is unlawful, cannot be accepted as long as the defect corresponding to the grounds for invalidation of the notification of changes in the amount of income of this case cannot be found.

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.