Seoul High Court-2018-Nu62487 ( October 15, 2019)

(A) Even if there is a defect that misleads the Plaintiff as a business operator of the instant workplace, the defect cannot be deemed objectively apparent, and thus, it cannot be 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

2019-Du-42181 Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax

AA

o Head of the tax office

The second instance decision

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu62487 Decided May 15, 2019

2019.25

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the Act. It is so decided as per Disposition