Busan District Court 2013Guhap742 (27 June 2013)

The plaintiff's second taxpayer's defects in the disposition imposing the second taxpayer can not be seen as apparently invalid as it can not be viewed as void.

(1) The defendant of the first instance judgment as to September 30, 2005 is deemed to have an objective circumstance that the plaintiff was mistaken for the oligopolistic shareholder at the time of September 30, 2005, and the stock ownership relationship can only be clarified only when investigating the facts accurately. Thus, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed to be apparent from appearance, and thus, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be null

Article 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu20158 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Note AA

○○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2013Guhap742 Decided 27, 2013

January 10, 2014

January 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant confirmed on January 31, 2006 that each imposition disposition of the value-added tax for the first term of 1, 2005 and the value-added tax for the second term of 2, 2005 against the plaintiff is null and void (the plaintiff claims the nullification of the whole amount of each value-added tax notified by the defendant on January 31, 2006, including additional charges and increased additional charges, until December 2012).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는, (1) 제1심 판결문 제4면 제17행 다음에 『〔즉, 과점주주의 제2차 납세의무는 주된 납세의무자의 본세 체납으로 인하여 징수부족액이 발생한 때에 비로소 성립하므로 그 성립시기는 적어도 주된 납세의무의 납부기한이 경과한 이후이나, 제2차 납세의무자인 법인의 과점주주인 여부는 법인의 납세의무의 성립일을 기준으로 판단한다(대법원 1985. 12. 10. 선고 85누405 판결).〕』를 추가하고, (2) 아래 제2항의 판단을 추가하는 이외에는, 제1심 판결의 이유 부분 기재와 같으므로, 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that, from the time of the incorporation of a corporation, oligopolistic shareholders are excluded from the subject of the imposition of increased additional dues, but the increased additional dues are collected in addition to the additional dues at a certain rate of national taxes in arrears from the date on which the payment deadline expires when national taxes in arrears are not paid. There is no provision to view otherwise from the time when the corporation is established to be oligopolistic shareholders

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.