Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-51801 ( November 03, 2016)

early 2015west 623 ( October 20, 2015)

If it is recognized that there is an error or omission in the details of the report based on data, such as lease contract or tenant statement, and it is possible to conduct a field investigation, it can be corrected

It is difficult to see that a tax official’s failure to submit account books or other data at the time of tax investigation to verify and verify the actual rental income amount by securing a lease contract or hearing a statement from each tenant. It is difficult to see that there is an error in the rent income amount calculated except for the portion proving the actual rental income amount.

Article 16 (Ground Taxation)

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Nu772 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Appellant-Appellants

○○○ 1

Appellant-Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap51801 Decided November 3, 2016

July 19, 2017

September 13, 2017

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all plaintiffs' lawsuits corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. 6/7 out of the total litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiffs on April 0, 2014, which exceeds KRW 000 of the value-added tax of 2009 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), the portion exceeding KRW 00 of the value-added tax of 1, 2010, the portion exceeding KRW 000 of the value-added tax of 1, 2010, the portion exceeding KRW 000 of the value-added tax of 2,000, the portion exceeding KRW 000 of the value-added tax of 1, 2011, the portion exceeding KRW 00 of the value-added tax of 2, 200, the portion exceeding KRW 00 of the value-added tax of 1, 2012, the portion exceeding KRW 00 of the value-added tax of 2,200, and the portion exceeding KRW 00 of the value-added tax of 1,2013.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. On April 0, 2014, the part exceeding 00 won of the imposition disposition of value-added tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the plaintiffs on February 2, 2009, the part exceeding 00 won of the value-added tax for the first time in 2010, the part exceeding 000 won of the value-added tax for the second time in 2010, the part exceeding 00 won of the value-added tax for the second time in 201, the part exceeding 00 won of the value-added tax for the second time in 200, the part exceeding 00 won of the value-added tax for the second time in 200, the part exceeding 00 won of the value-added tax for the second time in 200, and the part exceeding 00 won for the second time in 200, 3010.

○ Defendant: Revocation of the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and all the plaintiffs’ claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the pertinent part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, No. 2 through No. 12) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 3 - 7 - 8 "each disposition of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case") shall be deleted.

○ 3rd part of the "each of the dispositions of this case" is "each of the dispositions of this case", and the "Plaintiffs" of the 9th and 10th part are all "Plaintiff Kim Jong-seok".

○ The following shall be added to the 10th page below:

D. In accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance on June 0, 2017 where the trial was in progress, the Defendant made a reduction of the Defendant’s ex officio revocation of the part exceeding KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 1 year 201, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs on April 0, 2014, in excess of KRW 000, out of KRW 000, out of KRW 000, of the value-added tax for 2 year 201, in excess of KRW 00, out of KRW 00, among the value-added tax for 2 year 201, the part exceeding KRW 00, out of KRW 00, among the value-added tax for 2 year 200, and the part exceeding KRW 00,000, among the value-added tax for 1 year 203 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

"No. 9-5, No. 10" is added to "No. 9-1, No. 10" in the 3rd 11-12 of the Act (based on recognition).

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of ex officio cancelled tax amount among the instant lawsuit

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du38139, Jun. 11, 2015; 2017Du32777, May 31, 2017).

On June 0, 2017, the defendant decided to revoke ex officio the part corresponding to the part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance court on June 1, 2017, which was pending in the trial of the court, as seen earlier. As such, the defendant sought the revocation of the above-mentioned part of the lawsuit in this case as to the claim for revocation of the disposition which had already become null and void due to its extinguishment, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the pertinent part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, from No. 3 to No. 14 to No. 6) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The 6th page of the 4th page "No. 7" is added to "No. 7, 11, 13."

In addition, "the facts verified," in Part 10 of Part 4, "On the other hand, at the time of the above tax investigation (the part investigation of value-added tax), the plaintiff AA received and received information about the tax investigation (prior notice), the taxpayers' rights charter, and the information about the tax investigation. On October 0, 2013, immediately after the commencement of the tax investigation, the plaintiff AAA added "the fact that it delegated the authority to participate in the above tax investigation or to state opinions to BB, a tax agent," and "the defendant" in Part 10 is "the defendant".

○ The following shall be added subsequent to the last 20th day of the fourth page:

The Plaintiffs stated that there was no document prepared or held with respect to monthly rent during the pleadings in the first instance trial, and that the lessor who concluded several recommended rental agreements does not have an account book keeping the same level of the monthly rent that was paid to each lessee (the same is true in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs were holding the data on necessary expenses related to the lease of the building of this case according to each of the aforementioned evidence Nos. 0 and 0).

○ From the last parallel of the fourth to the sixth parallel, the first parallel of the fourth to the sixth parallel shall be followed as follows:

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part that the defendant seeks to revoke ex officio in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims shall be dismissed, without merit. Since the part that lost the defendant among the judgments of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the part that lost the defendant among the judgments of the court of first instance shall be revoked and all of the plaintiffs shall be dismissed, and the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are just in conclusion, and therefore all of the plaintiffs' appeals shall be dismissed as it is without merit