State liability due to ex officio cancellation of business registration is not established.

In the ex officio cancellation of the business registration of a public official in charge, the notice provision under Article 6 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Handling Regulation is not observed, but the "Act" under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act does not include a violation of a simple internal rule, so it is difficult to view that it has lost objective legitimacy.

Article 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act:

2015 Ghana 5479 Damage

New○○○ Co., Ltd.

Korea

July 7, 2015

August 11, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 104,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 2001, the Plaintiff’s business commencement date on March 20, 2001, and business attitude on March 2, 2001

B filed an application for registration of business with the content of ‘do retail' and category as ‘building materials', and the head of Seomancheon District Tax Office issued a business registration certificate with the registration number of '00-0000' to the Plaintiff on the same day upon the application of the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. On May 16, 201, May 16, 2011, the Plaintiff’s temporary closure period is November 13, 201 from the same date.

On November 14, 201, the date following the expiration date of the temporary closure period, the temporary closure report was automatically resumed.

C. However, on December 20, 201, the director of the Seocheon District Tax Office at the location where the Plaintiff was registered as a business.

In light of the circumstances such as non-existence of this and non-payment of taxes in arrears, the plaintiff determined that the business was not operated, and the plaintiff's business registration was cancelled ex officio on November 14, 201 on the grounds of unauthorized Business Closure on November 14, 201, the following day after the expiration date of the business suspension period (hereinafter referred to as "ex officio cancellation

D. On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that the head of Seocheon District Tax Office’s instant business registration ex officio revocation, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke ex officio revocation on May 3, 2013 on the grounds that it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have closed its business after the expiration of the period of closure.

E. After July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was re-registered as to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was also subject to business registration.

On August 20, 2014, the report on the closure of business was made.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 4, 5, Eul's 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

After completing various utility model registrations and patent registrations, the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of producing the hot-ridges of residential floor, but the Plaintiff was unfairly cancelled the Plaintiff’s business registration ex officio without any notice. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal to revoke the ex officio of the said business registration. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages incurred by the Plaintiff by cancelling the Plaintiff’s business registration unfairly, as damages incurred by the Plaintiff, and to compensate for losses incurred by the Plaintiff from December 20, 201, after the date of the ex officio cancellation of the business registration, the sum of profits equivalent to KRW 80 million for the period from July 24, 2013 to July 24, 2013, including the sum of KRW 240 million and the amount of damages incurred by mental damage.

3. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

E.L. Value-Added Tax Act

(1) Any business operator shall apply for business registration to 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 apply for business registration even before the commencement date of the business.

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

(7) If a business operator registered pursuant to 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;

2. Where he/she fails to actually commence business after filing an application for registration under the proviso to paragraph (1);

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 15 (Cancellation of Registration) (2) In any of the following cases, the actual business under Article 8 (7) 2 of the Act shall not be commenced:

1. Where he/she fails to commence his/her business for at least six months without good cause after business registration;

2. Where his/her whereabouts are unknown after going bankrupt due to a default, large amount in arrears, etc.;

3. Where a business operator is in a de facto state of business closure because he/she is unable to conduct business due to cancellation of authorization or permission or other reasons.

4. Where an entrepreneur is virtually in the status of business closure without filing a value-added tax return over at least two consecutive taxable periods without good cause;

5. Where the business operator fails to actually commence the business due to the causes similar to those prescribed in subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Terms and Conditions on the Handling of Value-Added Tax

Article 16 (Cancellation of Business Registration) (1) Where a business operator falls under Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree, the director in charge of value-added tax shall, without delay, cancel his/her business registration and collect his/her business registration certificate, and take measures to make the recovered business registration reusable: Provided, That where it is impossible to collect, the fact of cancellation of registration (trade name, name, business registration number, and closedown)

(2) Where an internal affairs manager cancels his/her business registration ex officio pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall enter it in a computer system after obtaining approval from the manager, and notify the relevant business operator of such fact in accordance with the notice of cancellation of business registration (attached Form 6).

B. Determination

1) Even if any administrative act may be judged to be unlawful as a result, that act;

It is difficult to readily conclude that an administrative act promptly constitutes a tort due to a public official’s intentional or negligent act. It is reasonable to deem that the administrative act violates the duty of objective care to have satisfied the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act to the extent that it is recognized that the administrative act has lost its objective legitimacy. In such a case, whether the administrative act has lost its objective legitimacy or not shall be determined on the basis of whether there exists a substantial reason for imposing liability for compensating for damages on the State or local governments by taking into account various circumstances, such as the form and purpose of the administrative act that constitutes an infringement, whether the act was involved in the infringement, the degree of involvement by the victim, the type of gains infringed, and the degree of losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da70600, May 12, 200; 2013Da206368, Nov. 14, 201

2) We examine the business registration of this case in accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal after ex officio revocation.

The facts acknowledged earlier are as follows, and Article 16 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Handling Regulation provides that the relevant business operator shall be notified in writing at the time of ex officio cancellation of the business registration of this case, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence No. 5 and Eul evidence No. 4, but it is recognized that the public official in charge of Seo Mancheon Tax Office did not notify in writing the plaintiff when he ex officio cancellation of the business registration of this case

On the other hand, however, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the cancellation of the business registration is also entered in the closure of the business in full view of all the provisions on the business registration.

In full view of the fact that the business operator’s status is not changed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du6903, Dec. 22, 2000); ② the tax Tribunal’s decision was cancelled after the cancellation of the business registration of this case; however, the public official in charge of the ex officio cancellation seems to have judged that the Plaintiff was not operating his business after the expiration of the business suspension period based on the Plaintiff’s ownership change in the location of the business operator; and the fact that the tax delinquency was in arrears; ③ in the ex officio cancellation of the business registration of this case, the public official did not comply with the provision of written notification under Article 16(2) of the Value-Added Tax Handling Regulation, but “in violation of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act” does not include a violation of a simple internal regulation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da2062, Jan. 30, 1973). Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no reasonable causal relation between the business registration of this case and the Plaintiff cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.