This case’s taxation and seizure disposition are not to be deemed to have lost objective legitimacy.

The public official in charge of the tax office also performed his duties according to the judgment that has reasonable grounds. Thus, the public official in charge of the taxation of this case and the seizure disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that such administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy by neglecting objective duty of care.

2012 Gaz. 19544 Baz.

Shin XX

Korea

December 11, 2012

January 22, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of rendering the judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2003, the non-party LAS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") set the lease deposit amount of KRW 000,000 and monthly rent of KRW 000,000.

B. On July 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, the joint representative director of the non-party company, and the grandchildrenB prepared a "contract for use" (hereinafter referred to as the "contract for use of this case") written in relation to some of the above land and buildings (the fourth floor of light steel framed structure, automobile-related facilities, 662.29 square meters and letter letter of rooftop; hereinafter referred to as the "part of the building in this case").

C. Pursuant to the instant use contract, the PublicCC remitted total of KRW 000,000, total sum of the deposit accounts in the name of Nonparty Company and KRW 000,000, total of the deposit accounts in the name of Nonparty Company from July 26, 2004 to October 26, 2007 pursuant to the instant use contract.

D. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the non-party company from August 20, 2003, the head of Sungdong Tax Office determined that the non-party company's sub-leaseed a part of the building of this case to the PublicCC and obtained a sub-lease of KRW 000 between August 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007, it was omitted at the time of the return. On September 18, 2008, the non-party company determined the non-party company's value-added tax amounting to KRW 00,000 and corporate tax amount amount to KRW 00 as of September 30, 2008 (hereinafter "the tax disposition of this case").

E. On November 3, 2008, when the non-party company did not pay the value-added tax and corporate tax by the due date, the head of Sungdong Tax Office attached the monetary claim against the non-party company's non-party company's non-party card (hereinafter "the attachment disposition of this case").

F. On December 29, 2009, the Tax Tribunal revoked the instant taxation disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 5 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) original and defendant's assertion;

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the non-party company is a single corporation combined with the inspection department (the plaintiff), the maintenance department (the grandchildrenB), and the sales department (the publicCC). However, since each department has been operated as an independent separation system with independent status and authority, the portion borne by the publicCC out of the rent of each real estate of this case cannot be deemed to be the sub-income of the non-party company, the tax disposition of this case and the attachment disposition of this case based thereon are unlawful, and since the public official in charge of the non-party company, such as the head of Sungdong Tax Office, etc. who made such a disposition,

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) the publicCC transferred a part of the instant building from the non-party company to the non-party company and is an individual entrepreneur separate from the non-party company; (b) the instant taxation that deemed the monthly rent that the non-party company received from the publicCC as the sublease income and notified the value-added tax and corporate tax correction accordingly; and (c) the instant seizure disposition based thereon is lawful; and (d) the fact that even if it was unlawful, it does not constitute a tort since it cannot

B. Determination

Therefore, even if an administrative disposition was revoked in an appeal litigation after a certain administrative disposition, it cannot be concluded that the administrative disposition was caused by the intention or negligence of the public official immediately and constitutes a tort by the res judicata. In a case where the public official in charge of the administrative disposition is recognized as having lost objective legitimacy by failing to perform objective duty of care when considering the public official's standard, it shall be reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of the administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State compensation under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. In this case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the type and nature of gains of infringement, the form and cause of the administrative disposition infringing, the victim's involvement in the exercise of the administrative disposition, the degree of damages, etc., and whether there is a substantial reason to assume the responsibility for compensating damages to the State or local government (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31828, May 10, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s allegation that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not have a separate business registration while operating the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not have a separate business registration. The non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 27.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit without further review as to the scope of liability for damages. It is so decided as per Disposition.