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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2013 is revoked.

A. The director of the CCC head of the tax office conducted a survey on data on DDR (the business name: EE) and notified the Defendant of the taxation data on April 25, 2013, 2013 regarding the actual supplier of KRW 00,000,000 of the supply price of the tax invoice delivered at the second period of 2006 from DDR F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF”).

B. On September 1, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff omitted the above KRW 00,000,000 from the sales amount, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 for the second period value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 28, 2013. However, on March 19, 2014, the decision of dismissal was rendered on July 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, upon the request of GGG, who is an employee in charge of the food business division of F, introduced DNA electricity to FF, thereby leading to the transaction between DDA and F, and did not have a transaction with DDA as an independent business operator. In addition, since the Plaintiff was not operating a place of business within the jurisdiction of the Defendant in the second business year of 2006, the Defendant did not have the authority to take the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

B. Determination

1) In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, without being instructed or supervised by another person, made a transaction in FF name, issuance of tax invoices, and payment of the price, was an independent business operator under his/her responsibility with a comprehensive authority, and made a transaction with D Electric, under his/her responsibility, without considering the following facts and circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering each of the aforementioned evidence and each of the above evidence and evidence set forth in the evidence set forth in

① On October 1, 2005, F was started and closed ex officio on December 31, 2006, there was no fact that the place of business was actually operated in the business operator, or in the Seoul HHH 00 Dong 00-000, the place of business registration. MM, the representative of F in the business registration, stated to the effect that MF only lent its name to the Plaintiff and GG during the course of the tax investigation on DD electricity, and that FF only lent its name to the Plaintiff, and that FF only lent its name to the Plaintiff.

② The JJ, a real representative of DD Electric, stated to the effect that the J (the husband of EE, a nominal representative) was only engaged in the transaction with the Plaintiff, who had been engaged in the same business as a lighting company for not less than 20 years in the course of the tax investigation, and was never aware of FF.

③ In the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff directly carried out F F’s business affairs related to F’s lighting fixtures, among them, issued a tax invoice of an excessive amount of KRW 00,000,000 at the request of the transaction partner in relation to the transaction with DD Electric for the second period of 2006. The Plaintiff stated that some of the approval was made in the form of a bill, and that there was no data related thereto, since some of the approval was paid in cash.

④ On January 14, 2009, the Plaintiff was convicted of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Supreme Court Decision 000Da50000 Decided January 14, 2009), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on the premise that the Plaintiff, in collusion with GG on October 31, 2006, engaged in the same transaction as an independent business operator separate from FF during the second period of December 29, 2006, and the Plaintiff did not dispute any further in criminal proceedings.

⑤ From the account in the name of EE to December 15, 2006, the term “F A 00 million won” was written as to KRW 00 million in the account in the name of EE. In addition, on April 24, 2007, the said account was made by telephone transfer to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff’s 00 bank account. Since there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had transacted with D Electric, it is difficult to view that the said KRW 00 million was paid by the Plaintiff as the first transaction in the year 2007, as asserted by the Plaintiff.

2) Article 21(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that "the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of the tax to be paid or the amount of the tax to be refunded if a business operator fails to file the final tax return and there

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant disposition was unlawful on the part of the Defendant as the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, by comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances, which can be seen together with the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier.

① As seen earlier, as in the case of the Plaintiff, the place of business registered in the name of the Plaintiff does not exist, since the Plaintiff did not register as an individual entrepreneur as of the second business year of 2006 and traded with D Electric.

② However, in the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff stated that there was a place where the lighting gear was kept in BB-Gu No. 00 Dong 10.

(3) As seen earlier, it is difficult to see the FF as the business operator who runs the practical business, and therefore the FF’s location in its business registration or the location of its head office in its corporate register cannot be determined as the Plaintiff’

④ On April 3, 2007, after the second business year of 2006, the Plaintiff operated an individual business by opening the trade name “LE” in the Defendant’s jurisdiction.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the prior Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

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