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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on the attached list 1 shall be confirmed to be null and void.

A. The Plaintiff sells cosmetics and health food, etc. by making ○○-ro ○○-gu ○○○-ro ○○○-ro ○○-ro ○○

It is operating the ○○○ Business Bureau of the Bank of Korea.

B. The Defendant reported global income tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff in March 16, 2012, on global income tax in 2008 and 2010, and reported the sales of door-to-door salesmen who registered their business (hereinafter “door-to-door salesmen in this case”) to the Plaintiff by omitting the sales of the instant door-to-door salesmen from the Plaintiff’s sales, on the ground that they are an independent business operator, even though they actually provided a simple personal service on sales to the Plaintiff, and on the other hand, deemed that they were liable to withhold the sales of the instant door-to-door salesmen in the Plaintiff’s sales. Accordingly, on March 16, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of global income tax, value-added tax,

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination on June 5, 2012, and the National Tax Service on July 9, 2012

Considering that the sales incentive paid by the Plaintiff was reasonable to determine necessary expenses, the Defendant

The fact-finding was decided to re-examine.

D. The Defendant conducted a reinvestigation on sales incentives, etc., and on August 8, 2012, the change disposition column of the above Table was changed.

As described above, global income tax has been reduced and business income tax has been increased (hereinafter "the disposition of this case on March 16, 2012 on value-added tax"), and "the disposition of August 8, 2012 on disposition of March 16, 2012 on global income tax and business income tax of August 8, 2012 on the remaining amount after reduction of global income tax."

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The door-to-door seller of this case is an independent business operator who purchases and sells cosmetics from the plaintiff under his own calculation and responsibility. The plaintiff supplied cosmetics to the door-to-door seller of this case and received the price of the goods, and reported it as sales amount. The plaintiff did not withhold sales. Since the door-to-door seller of this case does not simply provide personal services to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not obligated to withhold business income. The disposition of this case has significant defects, and only the data submitted by the plaintiff and the door-to-door seller of this case can easily be seen that the door-to-door seller of this case is an independent business operator. Thus, the disposition of this case is null and void because its defect is obvious

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Generally, a tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any factual relation, income or act, etc. which is subject to taxation, shall be serious and clear. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to certain legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relations, the determination of whether it is subject to taxation can only be clearly identified, even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful as invalid as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). In a case where a person claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition and seeks the invalidity of it, the owner and the Plaintiff are liable to prove that there is a ground for invalidity of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

2) Determination

A) The Defendant: (a) deemed that the door-to-door seller of this case was registered as a business operator; (b) the door-to-door seller of this case did not actually engage in an independent business but provided services for sale to the Plaintiff without human resources and material facilities; (c) determined that the whole price of cosmetics sold by the door-to-door seller of this case constitutes the Plaintiff’s sales amount; and (d) the Plaintiff was liable to withhold the Plaintiff’s income paid to the door-to-door seller of this case. Therefore, whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not is determined depending on whether the door-to-door seller of this case was an independent business operator; (d) based on its determination, whether the door-to-door seller of this case was equipped with human resources and material facilities; (e) whether the door-to-door seller of this case entered into a transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the supply of cosmetics; and (e) whether the door-to-door seller of this case can independently determine the selling price of cosmetics received from the Plaintiff; and

나) 갑 제5, 9, 10, 11호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 방문판 매원들은 각자의 명의로 화장품 등 소매업의 사업자 등록을 하였고, 부가가치세를 신고・납부한 사실, AAA을 제외한 나머지 대부분의 방문판매원들은 조사과정에서 자신들이 독자적인 사업자였다고 주장한 사실, 원고가 이 사건 방문판매원들로부터 받지못한 물품대금의 지급을 구하는 소송을 제기하기도 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그리고 만일 이 사건 방문판매원들이 실제로는 원고에게 인적용역을 제공하는 것에 불과하였다면, 사업자등록을 함으로 인하여 발생하는 비용을 원고가 부담할 수밖에 없었을 텐데, 조사 당시 원고가 그 비용을 부담하였다는 점은 증명되지 않은 것으로 보인다. 그러나, 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 방문판매원들은 대부분 사무실 등 물적 시설을 갖추지 않은 상태에서 근로자를 고용하지 않고 화장품 방문판매 일을 한 사실, 원고와 이 사건 방문판매원들 사이에 화장품 거래에 관한 약정서나 계약서 등은 작성되지 않은 사실, 원고가 이 사건 방문판매원들로부터 그들이 화장품 판매대금을 입금 받는 〇〇은행 통장을 교부받아 가지고 있으면서 그 계좌를 관리한 사실, 특히 방문판매원들의 계좌에서 원고의 계좌로 이체하는 거래를 할때 동일 시간대에 같은 거래지점에서 한꺼번에 이루어지기도 한 사실, AAA의 경우 사업자등록을 하기는 하였지만 실제로는 원고의 계산과 책임 아래 화장품을 판매하고그 매출을 모두 원고의 계좌로 입금하였다고 진술한 사실, 이 사건 방문판매원들은 부가가치세법상 간이과세자에 해당하여 부가가치세 납부세액이 없는 경우가 대부분이고 납부를 한 경우에도 그 금액이 소액인 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다. 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고로서는, 이 사건 방문판매원들이 형식적으로는 사업자등록을 하였지만 실제로는 원고의 계산으로 화장품을 판매하고 그 판매대금도 원고에게 귀속되었고, 원고에게판매와 관련한 단순한 인적용역만 제공한 경우에 해당한다고 판단할 객관적인 사정이충분히 있었다.

C) Ultimately, the issue of whether the instant disposition satisfies the taxation requirements can be revealed only after an accurate investigation of the facts. As so, even if there is a defect in the instant disposition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed apparent from the appearance, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)