Whether the instant disposition is void as a matter of course

Although a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition and a lawsuit seeking the nullification of the instant disposition was filed, there is no interest in filing a lawsuit seeking the nullification of the disposition upon dismissal and dismissal.

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 3,868,40 on October 11, 1999 against the Plaintiff, and KRW 108,810 on global income for the year 1998, and imposition of KRW 194,560 on May 29, 2001, and KRW 11,295,150 on global income for the year 200, respectively, are invalid.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around December 1996, the Defendant: (a) made a false purchase tax invoice issued by ○○ Air Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Air Co., Ltd.”) as evidentiary data; (b) made a tax investigation on the ○ Air Co., Ltd. under suspicion of tax evasion; and (c) received a false tax invoice from ○○ Air Co., Ltd. on charges of tax evasion; and (d) received a false tax invoice from ○ Air Co., Ltd. on charges of tax evasion; and (e) received a tax invoice from ○○ Housing Co., Ltd. on charges of tax evasion; and (e) received a false tax invoice from 12,254,114 won from 195,23,694,224 won from 196,4,950,000 won from 30,000 won from 17,000 won from 19,000 won from 17,000 won from 13 others.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff omitted a sale declaration of KRW 45,898,338 in total from February 1994 to January 1996; (b) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,225,410 in value-added tax for the second period of 1994; (c) KRW 2,369,420 in value-added tax for the second period of 195; and (d) KRW 95,00 in value-added tax for the first period of 1995 to KRW 98 in global income (hereinafter referred to as “value-added tax imposition disposition on January 18, 1999; and (d) KRW 32,68 in global income for the second period of 195 to KRW 98 in global income for the second period of 198; and (e) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 90 in global income for 190 and KRW 98 in global income for the second period of 198 years (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”).

C. On January 18, 199 and February 8, 200, the Plaintiff appealed against each disposition of imposition of value-added tax and global income tax on February 18, 200, and filed a national tax appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 18, 2002. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that on December 10, 2002, the Plaintiff’s appeal was filed after the lapse of 90 days under Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid all the remaining 3,977,210 won of the national tax refund of 1,331,420 won among the value-added tax as of January 18, 1999 ( August 20, 199) and the total income tax as of November 1, 1998. However, the Plaintiff paid all the remaining 3,97,210 won of the global income tax refund of 10,40,720 won and the remaining 10,40,720 won remaining after being appropriated for the national tax refund of the global income tax as of February 8, 200 ( February 18, 200) and the value-added tax as of December 2, 199.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s global income tax on March 27, 2000 and the value-added tax on December 2, 1999, ○○○○-dong owned by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of the value-added tax, and the Plaintiff’s request on June 5, 2000 to the Korea Asset Management Corporation for a public sale procedure of the said real estate on behalf of the Plaintiff. On May 10, 2001, ○○○ was awarded a successful bid for the said real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer on its own on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of the value-added tax on December 2, 209.

F. Meanwhile, on May 11, 2001, the Defendant appropriated 12,667,950 won as global income tax (10,400,720 won + additional 2,267,230 won) as global income tax on February 8, 200, and 124,880 won (1,124,830 won + additional 219,050 won) as value-added tax on December 2, 199.

G. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax as of January 18, 1999 and the global income tax as of February 8, 200, and the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income tax as of February 8, 200. However, the above court dismissed the lawsuit seeking revocation on June 27, 2003 on the ground that the lawsuit seeking revocation was unlawful because it did not go through legitimate pre-determination procedures. The lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity is dismissed on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the contents of the above written confirmation as false. The above court dismissed the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income as of January 18, 1999 on the ground that the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax as of January 18, 1999 and the appeal seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income as of October 11, 199 (the above judgment dismissing the appeal as of October 20, 2007).

H. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the ○○○○ for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground that the public sale of the above real estate was null and void. However, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the imposition of value-added tax as of December 2, 1999 and the global income tax as of February 8, 2000, which was the cause of the public sale on July 30, 2003, were not based on false confirmation, and that the above imposition of value-added tax was not null and void due to no procedural defect in the delivery of the notice of tax payment on the above imposition, and the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal with the Daegu High Court 203Na681 on July 22, 2004 on the ground that the above imposition disposition was not based on a false confirmation, but on the absence of any defect in the service of the notice of tax payment on the global income at the time of the imposition on February 8, 2000, the above imposition disposition on the Plaintiff’s total income was null and void.

I. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment against the Republic of Korea and the Korea Asset Management Corporation as Daegu District Court 2003Ra81413. However, on June 24, 2004, the above court rejected the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of public auction as there is no interest in the lawsuit, and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax as of December 2, 1999 was not lawfully served on the plaintiff. The defects are significant and apparent and invalid. Therefore, the Republic of Korea has the duty to return value-added tax 1,124,880 won for the second period of February 1999 distributed in the above public sale procedure, but the remaining claims of the plaintiff (the value-added tax as of January 18, 199 and the global income tax as of February 8, 200) were not sufficient to prove that the above disposition of imposition was legitimate and dismissed as of February 24, 2004. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed as of 2040.6407.207.

A. On December 2, 1999, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke ex officio the imposition of value-added tax on 2nd day of December 1999, as the judgment on return of unjust enrichment became final and conclusive.

Each description, pleading, or pleading of the facts that there is no dispute (including each number), Nos. 1 to 13 (including each number);

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. The part concerning imposition of global income tax of 108,810 won for the year 1998 as of October 11, 1999 and the part concerning imposition of global income tax of 3,868,400 won for the year 1999 as of October 11, 199 and the part concerning imposition of global income tax of 11,295,150 won for the year 200 as of May 29, 2001

(1) The disposition of imposition of global income tax on October 11, 1999 (1) on global income tax of 108,810 won (103,630 won + additional dues 5,180 won) on global income tax of 1998 as of November 1, 1998; (2) the disposition of imposition of value-added tax on October 11, 199 as of 294 as of 18, value-added tax of 573,00 won (50,000 + 73,000 won for additional dues 73,000 won) on global income of 1995; and (3) the remaining amount of value-added tax of 204,000 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 1994 as of January 18, 199; (4) additional tax of 203,000 won for global income of 205,209 won for additional dues of 294.

(2) However, according to the above, the Plaintiff’s global income tax (i) on November 1, 1998 and the value-added tax (ii) on January 18, 1999 (1-d.), and the global income tax on February 8, 200 (3) were appropriated for the public sale on May 11, 2001 for the amount of delinquent tax of KRW 12,67,950 (10,40,720 + surcharge 2,267,230) and thus, if the pertinent disposition becomes invalid, it is the direct remedy method for the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the tax payable on a civil lawsuit (the Plaintiff already seeks nullification of the amount of the value-added tax and the amount of the global income tax on the same date). Therefore, it is not unlawful for the Plaintiff to seek the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the tax payable on the grounds that it was final and conclusive on the grounds that it had not been subject to a final and conclusive judgment on the same date.

B. The part of the disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 994,560 on May 29, 2001

The above disposition for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity is made refers to the imposition of value-added tax (this tax of 905,830 won + additional dues of 88,730 won) on December 2, 199, and according to the above circumstances, the defendant appropriated the amount of delinquent tax of 1,124,880 won (this tax of 905,830 won + additional dues of 219,050 won) as the proceeds of public sale on May 11, 2001, and then (1 (f) the above disposition was revoked ex officio as the judgment becomes final and conclusive in a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground of the above disposition (i.e., this tax disposition becomes null and void). Accordingly, there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition (i.e., one's own, and (j)). Accordingly, this part of the lawsuit is also unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.