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

On July 3, 2014, the Defendant revoked each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,157,576, 209, value-added tax of KRW 6,078,292, and global income tax of KRW 1,315,348, which reverts to the year 2009 (the remainder after the decision of correction as of December 29, 2015) imposed on the Plaintiff on July 3, 201 (the remainder after the decision of reduction as of December 29, 2015).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff seeking revocation is revoked. On July 3, 2014, the part against the Defendant: (a) KRW 583,79 of the imposition of value-added tax 1,157,576 on the first term portion of the year 2009 against the Plaintiff; (b) KRW 5,088,047 of the imposition of value-added tax 6,078,29 for the second term portion of the imposition of KRW 6,078,29; and (c) KRW 1,315,348 of the imposition of global income tax for the second term portion of the imposition of KRW 1,032,261 of the imposition of

A. The plaintiff is a person who is registered as a representative director of a majority transport company, including ○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

나. 피고는 2014. 5. 7.부터 2014. 8. 29.까지 주식회사 ＡＡ운수(이하 'ＡＡ운수'라 한다), ＡＡ운수의 대표 김○○ 및 김△△에 대한 세무조사를 실시하던 중, 김○○과 원고 사이의 입출금 내역을 발견하였다. 피고는 원고가 김○○로부터 입금받은 금액을 화물자동차 번호판 매매대금으로 보고 직권으로 원고에 대한 사업자등록(업종 : 서비스, 무형자산중개, 개업일 : 2009. 1. 1.)을 한 후, 2014. 7. 3. 원고에게 2009년 1기분 부가가치세 38,258,350원, 2009년 2기분 부가가치세 13,110,770원 및 2009년귀속 종합소득세 6,452,970원을 각 결정・고지하였다(이하 '당초처분'이라 한다).

C. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the initial disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 22, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 2, 2015.

D. From June 25, 2015 to December 24, 2015, the Defendant conducted an integrated investigation into six corporations, such as ○○○, etc., the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff registered as the representative director, and thereafter, on December 29, 2015, the amount remitted from Kim○○ on December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff considered the amount of money remitted from Kim○○ as a brokerage commission, and the amount remitted from another person is deemed as a truck number sales fee, and the Defendant issued a decision of correction that reduces the initial disposition as follows (hereinafter referred to as “decision of reduction”; “the remaining part after the decision of reduction was made”; and “the issue of this case where the Plaintiff is a non-data sales that the Plaintiff appealed and contests from the original disposition”. The Plaintiff does not dispute the part arising from the brokerage commission in the instant disposition at the trial).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul

Each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the fact-finding results to the head of the tax office ○○○○ in the first instance, and the purpose of all pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The above decision of correction was made by combining some items (e.g., remittance amount of Gim○○, brokerage commission) and other items (e.g., remittance amount of another person, truck number plate sales proceeds), and the plaintiff is seeking revocation of the above decision of increase. However, the above decision of correction is not a disposition that actually gives disadvantages to the plaintiff, and there is no benefit to seek revocation.

B. Determination

1) The rectification disposition does not include the initial return or imposition disposition and the separate independent taxation disposition, but the substance is a disposition that leads to the alteration of the original return or imposition disposition and the favorable effect to the taxpayer, namely, partial revocation of the amount of tax. Thus, in a case where the remaining portion that remains not yet revoked due to the relevant rectification disposition is alleged to be illegal, the subject of an appeal litigation is the remaining part that is not revoked by the rectification of the original return or imposition disposition, and the decision of rectification of a reduction does not constitute the subject of an appeal lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8904, Nov. 15, 1996).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 12, the above decision of correction is not subject to a separate appeal litigation, since it is recognized that the whole amount of tax has been reduced (38,258,358 won in 209: 1,157,576 won in 1,157,576 won in 209, 2009: 13,110,777 won in 6,078,292 won in 13,110,777 won in 6,292) due to the increase of some items and reduction of some items in the initial disposition.

However, in this case, the subject matter of appeal is the remaining part of the original disposition that is not revoked by the decision of revocation of reduction (for example, there is a benefit to seek revocation of the remaining part of the Plaintiff), and the purport of seeking revocation of the disposition of this case corresponding to that of the Plaintiff is apparent in the record, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is lawful. Therefore, the defendant's assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the decision of revocation of reduction is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The assertion that the transfer of business constitutes a transfer of business and thus is exempt from value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "the first proposal").

이 사건 쟁점처분은 2009. 6. 15.부터 2009. 10. 19.까지 이루어진 4건의 화물자동차 번호판 매매[을 제11호증(조사종결보고서) 제9면에 있는 '화물자동차 번호판 무자료 매출 명세표' 중 순번 1 〜 5(그 중 2, 3은 1건 매매) 기재 부분이다. 이하 '이 사건 매매'라 한다)]가 무자료매출에 해당한다는 전제에서, 원고에게 부가가치세 등을 부과한 처분이다. 그러나 화물자동차 번호판은 화물자동차 운송사업의 허가권을 표창하므로 화물자동차 번호판을 양도하는 것은 실질적으로 화물자동차 운송사업을 양도하는 것에 해당한다. 그리고 화물자동차 운송사업 허가권은 영업용 자산으로서 이에 대한 부가가치세는 납부자에게 전액 환급되어야 한다. 따라서 이 사건 매매는 구 부가가치세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9915호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)과 구 부가가치세법시행령(2010. 2. 18. 대통령령 제22043호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)에서 부가가치세 부과대상으로 정한 '재화의 공급'에 해당하지 않으므로, 이 사건 쟁점처분 중부가가치세 부분은 위법하다.

2) The supplier of the instant goods for the sale is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the second chapter”).

In addition, the truck license plate can only be owned by a trucking transport business operator under the relevant laws and regulations, and in fact, the Plaintiff lent the purchase fund to ○○○, a trucking business operator, while arranging the instant trade. Since ○○○○, a trucking business operator, purchased a truck license plate and sold the instant goods to another place, the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff but the supplier of the instant goods and the subject of taxation belonging to ○○○, which is the supplier of the instant goods and the subject of taxation belonging to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was erroneous in the disposition counterpart, and is also contrary to the principle

(iii) argument that non-taxable practices exist (hereinafter referred to as the "third-party chapter").

Since the enforcement of the Trucking Transport Business Act on January 1, 1998, no value-added tax has been imposed on the sale of the truck number plate so far.

4) The allegation that the exclusion period has expired (hereinafter referred to as "Chapter 4").

Of the instant disposition, the starting point of the exclusion period of value-added tax for the first period portion of January 2009 among the instant disposition is July 26, 2009, which is the day following the due date of the due date of the final return, and the starting point of the exclusion period of value-added tax for the second period of July 26, 2009 is January 26, 2010, which is the day following the date of the due date of the final return of the final return. However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition at issue by adding non-data sales (total amounting to KRW 29,70,000) related to the instant disposition while the said decision of the exclusion period of value-added tax for the imposition of value-added

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Whether the sales of this case constitutes business transfer (Judgment as to the first ground for appeal)

1) Relevant legal principles

The former Value-Added Tax Act imposes value-added tax on the transaction of supply of goods (all tangibles and intangibles having property value) or services (Article 1(1)1 and Article 1(2)), and Article 2(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who independently supplies goods or services for business regardless of whether it is for profit-making purposes is liable to pay value-added tax (Article 2(1)1). The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that intangibles, which are goods, include all tangibles other than tangibles having property value, such as power, heat and natural power and rights (Article 1(2)).

Article 6(6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act mean the comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities, rights, and obligations, etc. including business property, to replace only the management body while maintaining the identity of the business. Thus, the business must be separated from the management body and can be recognized as a social independence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8422, Apr. 28, 2006). The fact that the object of transfer is not a simple physical facility but a organic combination is not a value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12778, Jul. 10, 198).

2) Determination

The registration number of a motor vehicle is assigned by the Mayor/Do Governor to manage the motor vehicle in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the registration number plate is merely a sign affixed and sealed to the motor vehicle, and the registration number plate itself cannot be separated from the motor vehicle and can not be an independent property or subject to transfer. Since the registration number of a motor vehicle for transport business is assigned on the premise that permission for transport business has been granted, in cases where a transfer of ownership is registered on a motor vehicle registered for transport business, the previous registration number shall not be assigned nor be assigned a new registration number (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da737, Apr. 26, 2013), unless there are special circumstances such as transfer of the transport business itself, etc.

As seen earlier, the instant truck’s ownership is still limited to the sale and purchase of a truck in the status of the land owner, and its substance constitutes a sale and purchase of the right to use a truck registration number represented by the number plate. Therefore, such sale and purchase shall be regarded as an intangible goods (all intangibles other than those with property value such as rights, etc.) under Articles 1(1)1 and 1(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 1(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, i.e., the supply of goods, which is subject to value-added tax. In light of the above, the reason alleged by the Plaintiff and each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 8 alone are insufficient to recognize that the instant sale and purchase constitute a “transfer of business that comprehensively succeeds to all rights and obligations with respect to the relevant business by place of business.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s first proposal premised on the fact that the instant transaction constitutes a transfer of business is without merit, without any further review.

D. Whether the supplier of the goods for the sale of the instant case is the Plaintiff or ○○○ (Judgment as to Chapter 2)

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) declares the so-called “principle of substantial taxation.” Therefore, in cases where there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages the subject of taxation, unlike the nominal owner, with respect to income, profit, property, act, or transaction, the nominal owner shall not be the person who actually controls and manages the subject of taxation pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation, rather than the nominal owner, the person who actually controls and manages the subject of taxation shall be the person liable for tax payment. Furthermore, whether such a case is applicable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the details of the use of the nominal owner; (ii) the degree and scope of involvement of the nominal owner; (iii) internal responsibility and calculation relations; and (iv) the location of independent management and disposition authority with respect to the subject of taxation; (v) the person liable for proof is, barring any special circumstance, such as changing the burden of proof even if the nominal owner of taxation.

Meanwhile, in a case where a written confirmation from a person subject to investigation was drafted in the course of the investigation to the same fact as the one subject to investigation, barring special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the will of the person who prepared the document, or it is difficult to take the written confirmation as evidence of the specific fact due to lack of the content thereof, the evidence of the written confirmation cannot be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

2) who is the supplier of the instant trade

A) Facts of recognition

In full view of the evidence No. 2, evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and fact-finding results to the director of the tax office of the first instance ○○○○○, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The sales price of this case was deposited into an account in the name of the Plaintiff (○○-○○-○○-7, △△△-01-△△△△△△△△), and was withdrawn and used in the name of the Plaintiff as follows.

② From January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a confirmation document stating that “A truck number plate was sold without issuing sales tax invoices to a transportation company, etc., and, in such case, there was a trade profit margin of 5% ordinarily.” (No. 11’s certificate No. 8, No. 9).

③ Although the freight plate brokerage commission between the Plaintiff and Kim○-○, which is recognized by the Plaintiff, is deposited in each account in the name of the Plaintiff whose sales price was deposited, it is difficult to find out the details of the purchase price related to ○○○○’s business.

B) Determination

In full view of the details of the purchase price of the instant sales, the current status of the use of the Plaintiff’s account, the details and details of the instant confirmation, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is the seller of the instant sales goods, supplier, and the subject of taxation to which the instant goods belong, and the mere fact that the nominal owner of the truck transport right or the truck registration number is ○○○○○.

Therefore, the second chapter of the plaintiff on a different premise is without merit.

(e) Whether there is a non-taxable practice (determination on Chapter 3);

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to establish the good faith principle or non-taxation practice prescribed in Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the tax and law relations, the tax authority’s act requires not only an objective fact that there was no taxation on certain matters over a long-term period, but also an intent that the tax authority would not impose tax on certain matters with the knowledge that the tax authority may impose tax on such matters, and such intent would be externally and explicitly expressed explicitly or implicitly. The term “an interpretation of tax-related Acts or practices in national tax administration, accepted by the taxpayer” under Article 18(3) of the same Act refers to an erroneous interpretation or practice, which is accepted by the general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer, to the extent that it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to trust such interpretation or practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du19294, Apr. 15, 2010).

2) Determination

앞서 본 바와 같이, 피고는 ＡＡ운수나 김○○에 대한 세무조사 과정에서 원고의 부가가치세 등 신고누락을 발견하자 곧바로 당초처분을 하였다. 이러한 사정에 비추어보면, 단순히 이 사건 처분 전에 화물자동차 번호판 매매에 대하여 부가가치세를 부과한 사실이 없었다는 사정만으로는, '이에 대한 비과세관행이 성립되었다고 할 정도로 장기간에 걸친 비과세 사실이 있었다'거나 '과세관청 자신이 과세할 수 있음을 알면서도 어떤 특별한 사정에 의하여 과세하지 않는다는 의사를 가지고 이를 대외적으로표시하였다'는 점을 인정하기에 부족하다.

Therefore, there is no reason for the third proposal of the plaintiff based on this premise.

f. Whether the exclusion period of value-added tax has expired (judgment on Chapter 4)

Article 26-2(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “The period of exclusion from the imposition of national taxes is five years from the date when the national taxes can be assessed (Article 26-2(1)3), but if a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return, it shall be seven years from the date when the national taxes can be assessed (Article 26-2(1)2).” Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “the date following the due date of filing the tax base and tax amount of the national taxes or the due date of filing the tax return shall be the date when the national taxes can be assessed.” The former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the period of taxation of value-added taxes on a businessman shall be 0 years from January 1 through 6, 30, 200; the Plaintiff shall file the final tax base and tax period of this case within 20.

Therefore, the plaintiff's fourth ground is without merit, which is based on the exclusion period for five years.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.