The instant disposition is not null and void because its defect is serious or unclear.

Since the settlement of the service price of this case is conducted and objective circumstances exist that can be deemed as having income subject to taxation, the disposition of this case is not invalid because its defect is serious or unclear.

Article 80 (Determination and Correction)

2015Guhap1132 global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

OO

O Head of tax office

2016.09.06

oly 2016.104

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 1, 2013, the defendant confirmed that the disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOO for the plaintiff on May 1, 2013 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, along with AA, was entrusted by BB (hereinafter “BB”) to provide services, such as prop work, for the purchase of sites for the construction of OO apartment located in OO-Eup at OO-type (hereinafter “instant service”). From May 2007, the Plaintiff began the instant service from around 2007, and was paid KRW OB from around 200.

B. On May 1, 2013, the Defendant imposed the global income tax on the Plaintiff on May 1, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a global income tax return even though it was paid the service price by BB (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on the ground that the period for filing the objection was 90 days, which was 90 days prior to the filing of the objection, and received a decision of rejection on August 30, 2013 on the ground that “the request for examination filed by the Plaintiff was filed without legitimate prior trial procedure” was dismissed. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for global income detailed and revocation of the disposition against the Defendant under the OOOOOOOO of the District Court, but was rejected on July 22, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 6-4, 7-1, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The service price paid by BB (hereinafter referred to as "the service price in this case") is received by the Plaintiff as a representative jointly with AA by the OO of the service agent. The Plaintiff paid most of the above amount as apartment site purchase price, etc. at the place designated by BB, and the money actually received by the Plaintiff in return for the service in this case is merely an OOB. Accordingly, the instant disposition under the premise that the Plaintiff was paid the full amount of the service price in return for the service in this case is null and void since there exists a grave and apparent defect.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect is an important part of the law.

In determining whether a defect is significant and obvious, it must be objectively obvious in violation of Article 2. The purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations should be examined from a teleological perspective, and there is a need to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself. As a general rule, a tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relation (income or act) which is subject to taxation, shall be deemed to have a significant and obvious defect. However, in a case where there is an objective reason to believe that a certain legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation is subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relation, whether it is subject to taxation or not, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed to be apparent even if it is externally apparent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da17339, Jun. 29, 2001).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 6-4, 5, and 2-1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 6-2, the Plaintiff and AA entered into an agency contract with BB on May 22, 2007. The Plaintiff and AA agreed to take charge of all duties necessary for the purchase of the project site and the total amount necessary for the purchase of the project site shall be KRW 00 million, but BB shall additionally pay KRW 00 million upon completion of the sales contract for the entire land by June 5, 2007. The agent fee constitutes OB (excluding value-added tax) and it is not clear that the Plaintiff’s final payment of the price for services was made in cash, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have entered into an agency contract with BB on May 23, 2006, separately from the Plaintiff and BB’s final payment of the price for services based on a special agreement and order that the Plaintiff would be entitled to receive KRW 700,000,00.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.