Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-60756 ( August 23, 2018)

Even if there is a defect that the plaintiff mispers the business operator of the workplace of this case, the defect cannot be objectively and objectively deemed null and void.

The issue of whether the father of the plaintiff's father has stolen the plaintiff's name was revealed only when the tax authority should accurately investigate the facts, and even if there is a defect which is merely a formal business operator of the disposition of this case, it cannot be said that the defect is objectively obvious even if there is a defect which is a mistake in the business operator of

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018-Nu62487 Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax

AA

o Head of the tax office

on October 27, 2019

on October 15, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant confirms that the imposition of value-added tax on the attached list of the first instance judgment against the plaintiff is all null and void.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows. This Court's decision is identical to the reasons for the first instance court's decision (excluding the part of "3. conclusion") except to supplement or add the corresponding part of the first instance court's decision as follows 2, and it is also cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ 3 11. Pursuant to paragraph (15) of the title "No. 18."

○ 3 Amendment to the “receiving” of the following seven to six parallels:

The plaintiff received on September 12, 2013, and the plaintiff had resided together with his parent in 2013 and 2014.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that a tax payment notice for the first period of January 2013 was invalid because the date of output and the date of service are changed later. However, in full view of the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 13 and 17, the Defendant’s argument that the registered tax payment notice for the first period of January 15, 2013 was returned on January 8, 2014, and the fact that the registered tax payment notice for the first period of January 15, 2014 can be re-printed and re-printed the tax payment notice for the first period of January 17, 2014

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, who was merely a person whose name was stolen, as his father obtained business registration by stealing the name of the Plaintiff and engaged in his business, is null and void as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

However, as the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative of the instant workplace from August 25, 2009 to March 5, 2014, and whether the Plaintiff’s father has abused the Plaintiff’s name can only be identified by the tax authorities only when investigating the facts accurately. As such, even if there is a defect that misleads the Plaintiff, who is a mere mere mere mere mere business operator of the instant disposition, as the business operator of the instant workplace, it cannot be viewed as an invalidation as a matter of course. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff also asserts to the effect that the tax payment notice of the second term portion in 2013 and the first term portion in 2014 (Attached No. 9, 10) was unlawful.

Article 10 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if a document relating to a notice or demand for tax payment, disposition on default, or an order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts is served by mail, it shall be served by registered mail"; Article 10 (4) provides that "if a person to be served with a document is not present at the place to be served, it may be served by a person to be served with a document as his/her employee, worker, or cohabitant, and Article 11 (1) provides that "if a person to be served with a document falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the document shall be served pursuant to Article 8 after 14 days from the date on which the main contents of the document are publicly notified, such document shall be served by registered mail, but no return is made by registered mail"; Article 7-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if a document is served by a person to be served by registered mail but no return is made by a person without a registered mail, such document shall be served within the prescribed by Presidential Decree."

Considering the evidence and facts admitted in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, it is reasonable to view that the second term portion of 2013 and the first term portion of 2014 against the plaintiff were sent by registered mail on the plaintiff's resident registration and returned twice due to the plaintiff's absence of the recipient, and service by public notice is difficult within the due date for payment (the plaintiff is not at issue from the first date for pleading of this court to the legality of service by public notice). The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition is null and void, since the tax authority should take any procedure to cancel the Plaintiff’s business registration pursuant to Article 7(2)1 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 8(7)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12101, Dec. 31, 2018) or undergo a procedure to investigate accurate facts, such as by making contact with the Plaintiff and confirming whether the Plaintiff is directly operating the business on one occasion.

However, it is difficult to see that there is a defect in the disposition of this case solely on the ground as alleged by the Plaintiff, and that the defect is serious and clear. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.