Whether the original disposition is void as a result of the fraudulent use of a name;

Whether the name was stolen or not, etc. should be clearly examined, and even if the business entity is not a business entity at the same place, the defect in the imposition of the value-added tax can not be seen as apparent, and thus cannot be viewed as void.

Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Registration]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 1, 2003, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 22,839,020 against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2002 is null and void (the written complaint seems to be written in writing on April 25, 2003).

1. Details of the disposition;

From July 1, 2002 to November 11, 2002, the Plaintiff was registered as an operator of precious metal retail business with the trade name, "○○○○○○○-74 (hereinafter "the instant business establishment") of Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, ○○○○○○○○○○-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the instant business establishment"). On May 1, 2003, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 22,839,020 for the instant business establishment during the instant period (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with respect to the instant disposition without going through the pre-trial procedure, such as a request for review under Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it actually seeks revocation of the said disposition. However, the provisions on the pre-trial system do not apply to the case of filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of the disposition (Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Act). Since it is apparent that the instant lawsuit seeks nullification on the ground that there is a serious and clear defect in the disposition of this case

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not operate the instant place of business, and the Plaintiff did not directly engage in business registration for the said place of business. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff made business registration by stealing the Plaintiff’s name and operated the said place of business, the instant disposition imposed on the Plaintiff who was entirely unrelated to the operation of the instant place of business is null and void due to significant and apparent defects.

B. Determination

The mere fact that a disposition of taxation is to be null and void is insufficient to say that there is an unlawful reason, and its defect is in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes and objectively obvious. In this case, the defect of the disposition of taxation imposed on a person who does not have any legal or factual relation with the legal or factual relation subject to taxation should be deemed to be significant and obvious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to a certain legal or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relation, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful disposition of taxation which misleads the above fact of taxation is null and void automatically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da24986, Jul. 10, 200; 96Nu12634, Jun. 26, 1998). Thus, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s business operator’s aforementioned business operator’s business registration cannot be deemed null and void even if there is no more objective reason to believe.

4. Conclusion

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