The case holding that a wrong decision of correction shall not be void as a matter of course;

Despite the plaintiff's lawful issuance of the tax invoice, the disposition agency's error in its investigation officer's failure to issue the tax invoice and making an error that the plaintiff omitted and omitted sales in the account book and thereby making a decision of correction by mistake is merely a ground for revocation of the administrative disposition, but does not necessarily constitute a ground for revocation of the disposition.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Nu112 Delivered on June 27, 1972

Plaintiff

The litigation performers of the North Busan District Tax Office shall be knife, Kim Jong-hee, Red Mung, Geum-hee, Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee, and Sung-sung

Daegu High Court Decision 78Gu187 delivered on July 3, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the records, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to seek the cancellation of the administrative disposition of this case in the court below on June 15, 1979, and claimed that the administrative disposition of this case is void as a serious and obvious defect. However, although the plaintiff properly issued the tax invoice as the grounds for invalidation, the public official in charge of investigation of the disposition agency did not issue the tax invoice and did not correct the tax amount as reported by the plaintiff because the plaintiff did not issue the tax invoice and did not correct the sales. Thus, even if the grounds for its assertion are true, it is clear that the administrative disposition of this case is not a ground for revocation (Supreme Court Decision 71Nu112 delivered on June 27, 1972).

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the administrative disposition of the plaintiff on the ground of macroficial evidence as unlawful. According to the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and even if the plaintiff asserted it merely because it is a ground for revocation as seen above, the lawsuit is eventually placed in the name of the dismissal of the lawsuit after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit. Accordingly, it is not recognized that there is an error in legal interpretation, such as theory, or an incomplete hearing, or any other violation.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Do-ho (Presiding Justice)