The revocation of a business operator's registration.

The Defendant’s act of cancelling the Plaintiff’s business registration ex officio is merely an entry of the closure of business, and thereby does not cause any change in the Plaintiff’s status as a business operator. Therefore, the Defendant’s act of ex officio cancellation of business registration cannot be deemed an administrative

2014Guhap1036 Business operator's revocation of registration (Closure of business)

oo Stock Company

Head of Dong Tax Office

November 20, 2014

November 27, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

In the first place, the Defendant’s notification of the cancellation of the business operator’s registration made to the Plaintiff on November 21, 2013 is revoked. ① In the first place, the Defendant’s notification of the cancellation of the business operator’s registration made on November 21, 2013 is confirmed to be invalid. ② The Defendant’s notification of the cancellation of the business operator’s registration made on November 21, 2013 is found to be unlawful as it did not revoke the notification made to the Plaintiff on November 21,

1. Case history

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that has been engaged in the business of manufacturing non- alcohol beverages in OO-1 on the OO-type O-O of the Chungcheongbuk-gun.

B. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would cancel the Plaintiff’s aggregate when the Plaintiff did not operate a business at the seat of its business registration, and the Plaintiff did not report value-added tax and corporate tax for the second period from 2011 to 2013 business years from 2011 to 2012. In fact, where the Plaintiff does not run a business or is operating a business normally at a place other than its business registration location, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would cancel the Plaintiff’s aggregate when failing to implement the business within a given period.

C. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff was engaged in the business without permission; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the business registration that the Plaintiff revoked the business registration on December 31, 2012.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on December 16, 2013, and the said claim was dismissed on June 3, 2014.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap-1 to 3, respectively. The purport of the whole pleading is as follows.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion

The Defendant’s act of ex officio cancellation of business registration is merely an entry of the closure of business, and thereby does not change the Plaintiff’s status as the business operator. Therefore, the Defendant’s act cannot be asserted as an appeal litigation because it is not a disposal nature. Therefore, the instant lawsuit should

B. Determination

The purpose of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and to secure the taxation data. This is a mere report of business fact, which is constituted by filing a business registration application with the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration. Furthermore, the ex officio cancellation by the tax authority under Article 8(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act is merely the fact of business closure, and it does not result in a change in the status of the business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du2200, Jan. 27, 201; 99Du6903, Dec. 22, 2000).

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s act of cancelling the Plaintiff’s business registration ex officio is merely an entry of the closure of business, and thereby does not cause any change in the Plaintiff’s status as the business operator. Therefore, the Defendant’s act of ex officio cancellation of business registration cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation. Therefore,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.