2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law who establishes and operates an attorney-at-law office (hereinafter referred to as the “law office of this case”) from January 17, 201 after completing business registration.

B. Around October 2013, Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the filing of a revised return of value-added tax on the charge of providing legal services, such as legal representation, and underreporting the relevant revenue amount. Accordingly, on November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a revised return of value-added tax for the first time in 2013, adding the tax base of the underreported fee of KRW 000,000 to the tax base, and paid the value-added tax accordingly.

C. From September 26, 2016 to October 31, 2016, the head of the ○○○ Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation into global income tax for the Plaintiff from September 26, 2016 to October 31, 2016, and confirmed the fact that the total amount of fees paid by ○○, etc. for providing legal services concerning individual rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and exemption cases was omitted in the sales of the instant legal office; and confirmed the fact that the actual taxable period of KRW 000,000, which was reported by the Plaintiff on November 11, 2013, was 20 to 2012, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

D. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the value-added tax for the second term portion of the year 2012 (including additional tax), 000 won for the first term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2015 (including additional tax), 000 won for the second term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2015 (including additional tax), and 0000 won for the first term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2016 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff only lent the name of attorney to Cho ○, a chief secretary, etc., and provided legal services to clients and received fees therefor is ○○, etc. Therefore, a person liable to pay value-added tax pursuant to the provision of the above services is not the Plaintiff, but Cho ○, etc., and the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was contrary to the substance over form principle.

2) Since the amount acquired by the name transfer in a related criminal case was collected in full, the fees determined by the Defendant to have omitted the return and payment of value-added tax cannot be deemed to have been realized as income. Accordingly, the said fees are not subject to value-added tax liability.

B. Determination

1) In light of the principle of substantial taxation, the determination of a taxpayer should be based on substance, not external appearance. As such, if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer. In addition, even if an administrative judgment does not take custody of the fact-finding in a criminal trial, the facts acknowledged as the crime of criminal judgment which became final and conclusive as to the same factual basis are sufficiently binding evidence, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a judgment on the facts in the criminal trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du28240, May 24, 2012).

2) In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the following facts are recognized.

A) On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was convicted on May 2, 2017 due to a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act that a person, other than an attorney-at-law, lent the name of the attorney-at-law to conduct legal affairs, such as personal rehabilitation, and received a total of 000 won from Cho○, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da3698, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017No1705, 2017Do15402).

B) At the time of the appellate trial of the above criminal trial, the Plaintiff asserted that it did not constitute the nominal name because of the direction and supervision of Cho○○, etc., but the appellate court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds that according to the relevant evidence, the court below concluded a contract to accept the case and paid all expenses for employee benefits and service fees, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the process of preparing and approving the document and received a certain amount as the nominal name lending fee.

C) On July 26, 2016, the judgment rendered on July 26, 2016 on the charge of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which was found guilty on July 26, 2016 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No1821), Park○, and Lee○ was final and conclusive around that time. The judgment rendered on Cho○-○ was final and conclusive on March 15, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No2946, Supreme Court Decision 2017Do47).

D) New evidence to reverse the findings of each criminal judgment finalized in the instant case was not submitted.

3) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff did not entirely participate in the process of supplying related legal services, such as personal rehabilitation, bankruptcy, exemption, etc. handled by Cho○○○, etc., and only received a loan fee from Cho○, etc. for the purpose of lending the name of the attorney from Cho○, etc. As such, the supply of the above legal services was practically done by Cho○, etc., and it is reasonable to view that the beneficial owner of the income therefrom was also the beneficial owner of the income.

Therefore, the instant disposition that is based on the premise that the person liable to pay value-added tax on the supply of the above legal services is the Plaintiff is unlawful (as long as the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted in entirety, no further determination is made on the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition.