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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 144,679,720 in total from the first period of December 14, 2012 to the second period of December 2009 against the Plaintiff on December 14, 2012, and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 153,764,09 in total from the date of 2006 to December 17, 2012 against the Plaintiff by the head of the competent tax office shall be revoked.

A. From Oct. 27, 2005 to Nov. 20, 2009, the Plaintiff operated the main source of “O-O-O, and “BB” on the fifth floor of OO-dong O-O, and the fifth floor (hereinafter “instant workplace”).

B. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the CCC (RepresentativeO; hereinafter "CC") from November 24, 201 to January 13, 2012, 200. 3, 203: (a) the Plaintiff did not report value-added tax despite the fact that the instant establishment was operated as an independent accounting system separate from CCC; (b) the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the sales of credit card on the provision of essential services during the operating period of the said establishment. On December 14, 2012, 207, 203: (c) the Plaintiff was registered as an independent entrepreneur for the instant business; (d) the Plaintiff was imposed for KRW 16,962, 70, 207; (e) the Plaintiff was imposed for KRW 16,167, 206, 107, 207, 207, 16, 206, 207, 207, 2016.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In the instant workplace, where a branch office is closed as a corporate branch of the CCC, the rights and obligations should be attributed to the CCC, which is the principal office. However, the Defendants deemed that the said workplace was operated by an individual of the Plaintiff, and the transaction amount was attributed to the Plaintiff, and the instant disposition was unlawful. 2) The Defendants imposed tax on EE, the legal nature of which is similar to CCC, in violation of the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of taxation on the ground that it is unlawful.

4) In light of the existing taxation practice, the Plaintiff’s operator of a branch office believed that he did not pay value-added tax and did not pay it, and there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff into neglecting his duty. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is unlawful.

5) In a fraudulent act revocation case against the Plaintiff’s mother and partner, the Defendants responded to compulsory adjustment under the premise that the Plaintiff did not have any tax to be paid to the Defendants. Even if not, the Defendants collected some tax due to the enforcement of the said compulsory adjustment, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful. (b) Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of basis taxation is violated

A) Relevant legal principles

The provision of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to impose a tax burden on a person who actually reverts, not a person who formally reverts income. As such, the attribution of income is not determined by the formal business name and legal relationship, but by the relationship of attribution of profits arising from substantial business activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du8499, Jan. 19, 2012).

B) In the instant case:

In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in the statement Nos. 4 through 12 of the evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the place of business of this case is a branch office of the CCC only formally, and its substance was operated as an individual workplace of the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition that deemed that the sales of the above place of business belongs to the Plaintiff is lawful.

① Although the instant business establishment is registered as a branch of the CCC, the CCC only received annual fees from each branch, including the instant business establishment, and did not participate in the actual business activities of each branch. ② The Plaintiff received tuition fees from ordinary members, and received them from the Plaintiff, the representative of which belongs to the Plaintiff, who is the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also acquired facilities and equipment kept in the instant business establishment with personal funds.

③ The instant place of business is not registered as a branch office on the certified transcript of CCC’s corporate register.

④ The Defendants demanded the Plaintiff to submit to the Plaintiff materials to determine the person to whom transaction relations of the instant workplace occurred continuously from the tax investigation stage. However, the Plaintiff did not submit any relevant materials until the instant court.

2) Whether the principle of trust protection or the principle of tax equality is violated

The case presented by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have established a taxation practice imposing the value-added tax on the branch offices of the family association regardless of the actual business form, and it seems that there is a reasonable ground to impose another tax on the business establishment of this case operated independently of the business establishment which is substantially a branch office of the family association, and thus, it cannot be deemed to go against the principle of tax equality.

3) Whether the establishment of a corporate entity or the secondary tax liability provision is violated

The disposition of this case is merely taken by deeming the Plaintiff as the actual taxpayer, but it does not deny the legal personality of the CCC, or the Plaintiff’s second taxpayer of CCC, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit. 4) Whether penalty tax is illegal or not

A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be reasonably present or to expect the performance of his/her obligations to the party concerned, etc., if there are justifiable grounds that make it unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of such obligations, such as where there are circumstances that make it unreasonable for him/her to expect to fulfill his/her obligations (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005).

B) However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 12 and 4, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, since it cannot be deemed that there is any justifiable ground for not being negligent in neglecting the duty to pay taxes to the Plaintiff.

① The instant business establishment was registered as a branch of the CCC and was practically operated as the Plaintiff’s personal company.

② The Plaintiff previously paid the value-added tax at the time of operating the individual company.

5) As to the assertion regarding the compulsory adjustment of the relevant case

A) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 20, Korea filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act against the plaintiff's mother and his birth (the plaintiff's tax claim against the plaintiff in the Republic of Korea is a preserved right and the plaintiff's mother who completed an OOO-O land and building under the plaintiff's name and the mother who was living together and the plaintiff's mother who filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of registration of establishment of creation of a neighboring mortgage and transfer of ownership in the name of his birth), and it can be acknowledged that a compulsory adjustment has been established to the effect that "the Republic of Korea receives 30 million won from the plaintiff's mother and his birth and waives the remainder of the claim."

Even according to the above facts, Korea was merely intended to waive the right to claim the registration of establishment of a mortgage and the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which is the original purport of the initial claim, and does not waive the Plaintiff’s tax claim. Moreover, the circumstance that part of the tax amount was paid due to enforcement following compulsory adjustment after the taxation disposition does not relate to the illegality of the taxation disposition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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