2. On February 1, 2010, the head of the relevant tax office’s imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007 against the Plaintiff and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second time in 2007 shall be revoked. The head of the relevant tax office’s imposition of KRW 00 of the global income tax for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2010 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are recognized in each description of Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 2 (including each number):

[1]

C. On January 5, 2005, the name ofCC and the place of business of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentO as the business operator registered under the name of the plaintiff, the business place of which is 000,000,000 the Dongdaemun-gu Integrated Market.

C) The head of Sungdong Tax Office and the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office found that the results of investigation of suspicions on EETXXILE and DD, and that △△△E issued a tax invoice of KRW 000 to BBINC without real transactions during the first VAT taxable period of the value added tax in 2007, and △△D issued a tax invoice of KRW 000 to CC without real transactions during the second VAT taxable period of the value added tax in 2007.

O The head of the tax office, according to the above findings, deducted the input tax amount under the above tax invoice, and recognized the plaintiff as the taxpayer and imposed the tax amount of KRW 000 on February 1, 2010 on the plaintiff in 2007 and imposed the tax amount of KRW 000 on KRW 200 on the plaintiff in 207.

O In addition, according to the above findings of the investigation, the head of Dongjak Tax Office excluded the amount equivalent to the supply value of the above tax invoice from necessary expenses, and imposed a global income tax of 000 won on the plaintiff on February 4, 2010, by recognizing the plaintiff as the taxpayer.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition") by the Defendants;

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while serving as an employee of Company II, who was operated by Park HH, lent his name to Park HH on January 5, 2005, and completed the business registration under the name of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, Park HH operated theCC as a actual business operator from January 5, 2005 to December 2, 2007, and the Plaintiff transferred theCC to the Plaintiff on January 2008, and operated theCC as a actual business operator. Accordingly, the taxpayer of the global income tax for the first and second years of 2007 and the operation of theCC was both Park HH. However, in the instant disposition, the instant disposition recognized the taxpayer of the additional surtax and global income tax as the Plaintiff, and imposed the global income tax and the global income tax on the Plaintiff, which was unlawful.

3. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are recognized, comprehensively taking into account the following facts in each testimony of Gap 3 through 12, 14 through 18, 22 through 26, 30, 31, 34 through 38, and 3, 4, 9, and 11, and 13 evidence (including each number), and the overall purport of the arguments at the court of first instance for the witness Park H and 13 of the Court of Court of Court of Justice for the witness of the first instance:

[1]

O Park H around November 1994, around the first half of the year 1994, purchased the Y's Y company, changed its trade name to the second half company, operated it, and the plaintiff worked as an employee of the second half company run by Park H since 1997.

LH, who had operated the II Commercial, was converted into the II Commercial Corporation on January 8, 2001 and established the II Commercial Corporation.

O. On December 31, 2001, Park H 60% as of December 31, 2001, now, LK 20%, the plaintiff 5%, L 10%, and KimM 5% respectively, and on December 31, 2002, Park H 60% as of December 31, 2002, LK 20%, the plaintiff 5%, and KimM 5%, respectively, and on December 31, 2004, L H 25% as of December 31, 200, and LM 20% as of December 31, 203, and 15% as of December 31, 2004, and H 25% as of December 31, 2003, and H 20% as of December 31, 204, the plaintiff 40%, and 15% stocks owned by KimM.

[2]

The store of Section II Co., Ltd. was 00, 000, 000, 000, and 0000, and the trade name on January 5, 2005 was 'CC', and the place of business was 4189, which was the location of the above main market B, and the business registration was completed in the name of the plaintiff.

O On January 6, 2005, after the above business registration position, the bank account in small and medium enterprises (00) and the bank account in Korea Exchange Bank (000) and the new bank account (000) were established in each Plaintiff’s name. The name ofCC was indicated in the passbook, and Park H’s seal was affixed to the seal.

From January 28, 2005 to December 21, 2007, approximately KRW 000 was remitted from the above Bank account to ParkN, a type of H, and KRW 000 was deposited into the above account.

O From February 6, 2006 to March 20, 2006, approximately KRW 000 was remitted from the above new bank account to ParkP, and a considerable portion of money deposited from the above new bank account from October 10, 2006 to the above new bank account was deposited into the Bank account.

O The Plaintiff produced and used the name cards entered as the director ofCC on January 9, 2005 and March 29, 2006.

[3]

O 위와 같이 사업자등록이 원고 명의로 마쳐져 있던 2007. 8.경 피고 종로세무서장이 CCCC의 2005년 제271부터 2006년 제2기까지의 부가가치세에 관하여 세무조사를 하 였는데， 그 조사종결보고서에， CCCC의 직원들이 원고가 실제 사장이고 박HH은 모르는 사람이라고 진술한 것으로 기재되었고， CCCC의 거래처 QQ헌트의 임RR 과장도 원고가 실사업주라고 진술한 것으로 기재되었다.

O At the time of the above tax investigation, the plaintiff signed the confirmation document recognizing the omission of purchase in the first and second period of 2006, and the plaintiff was directly investigated by tax officials or not prepared by the plaintiff, and Park H was directly investigated by tax officials.

[4]

O Around September 2009, the director of the tax office had conducted a tax investigation on the 1st and second additions toCC in 2007, and at the same time HH claimed that she had transferred CC to the Plaintiff around the end of 2007 when she had leased her business registration name from the Plaintiff and operated CC.

O At the time of the above tax investigation, Defendant Sejong District Tax Office issued the notice of tax investigation, the taxpayers' rights charter, and the documents related to moons in accordance with the tax investigation to the Plaintiff, and signed the receipt and integrity pledge on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was not directly examined by the tax official, and Park H was directly investigated by the tax official.

[5]

O Park Ho-H and the Plaintiff drafted a document on “II transfer system” and written on November 23, 2008, and the date on which the document was prepared was written on November 23, 2008, and the main contents of the document were that: (a) the relationship was terminated on June 2008 (including the 'in the country'), and that the Plaintiff paid 00 won per month for living, interest, and house length to the wife of Ha-H while jointly managing taxes, market unsettlement, and bank liabilities, and managing them until May 2008.

(O) As seen earlier, from May 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009, the new bank account opened in the name of the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 000,000, each of which was 13 times in around the 20th day of each month, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000 in March 5, 2009, and KRW 000 in March 20, 2009, and KRW 000,000 in May 20, 2009.

4. Determination

If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs should be liable to pay taxes (Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Reviewing the above evidence and the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the facts admitted are as follows.

[1]

(1) From November 1994, Park HH had been working as an employee of the second commercial company since 1997, and Park HH was converted into a second commercial company on January 8, 2001 and established a second commercial company with 5% or 40% shares in the list of changes in stocks of the second commercial company, and the plaintiff was in possession of 5% or 40% shares in the list of changes in stocks of the second commercial company. However, according to the letter of confirmation written by KimM, and the document of confirmation written by KimM, it was difficult to conclude that Park HH had been in possession of shares only as an employee of the second commercial company ( evidence No. 27 and 28), and under the document written by the tax accountant SP, which was in charge of the tax-related business ofCC, it was difficult to conclude that Park H was in possession of shares or was in possession of shares under the above title of the second commercial company in its name from November 1, 1994 to the end of 204.

(2) On January 5, 2005, a business operator registered asCC under the name of the Plaintiff. On January 9, 2005, and March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff manufactured and used the name named “CC director.” According to the letter of confirmation prepared by the above SS tax accountant, Park HH engaged in a direct product wholesale business in the name of employees since 2005, and at the same time, Park HH had difficulties due to bad credit standing, etc. (Evidence A No. 4). Furthermore, according to the letter of confirmation written by other business operators from the employees ofCC and other business operators, and Park HH is the actual business operator ofCC (Evidence 5, 14, and 16). According to the above circumstances, if the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the actual business operator, and if it is difficult for the Plaintiff to deem as the actual business operator, it would be deemed as the actual business operator ofCC.

(3) On January 5, 2005, business registration asCC was completed in the name of the Plaintiff. On January 6, 2005, the Plaintiff opened the Industrial Bank of Korea’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, and the Korea Exchange Bank account, and the new bank account respectively, and Park HH’s seal impression was affixed on the passbook. From January 28, 2005 to December 21, 2007, Park HH’s seal was affixed to the above bank account with approximately KRW 00 won, and approximately KRW 00 was remitted from that account to Park HH’s account and deposited KRW 300 from that account to the above account. Moreover, according to the actual circumstances that the Plaintiff’s seal impression was transferred from February 6, 2006 to March 206 to 206, and that it was difficult to view that the said account had the authority to manage the said money and KRW 00 was transferred from 300,000,000 to the above account.

[2]

(1) On January 5, 2005, the business registration asCC was completed in the name of the Plaintiff, and around August 2007 and September 2009, the head of the Defendant Sejong District Tax Office inspected the value-added tax on the value-added tax from 2005 to 2007 of theCC, which was signed by the Plaintiff in the confirmation form, but at the time, the Plaintiff was directly investigated by a tax official or was not prepared a full-time statement about the Plaintiff, and Park H was directly investigated by a tax official. According to the above circumstances, it is probable that the Plaintiff, as the business owner, signed a certain document as the business owner, and that Park HH would be deemed to have complied with the tax investigation as the actual commercial business operator ofCC.

(2) 피고 종로세무서장이 2007. 8.경 CCCC의 부가가치세에 관하여 세무조사를 하였을 당시 그 조사종결보고서에， CCCC의 직원들이 원고가 실제 사장이고 박HH은 모르는 사람이라고 진술한 것으로 기재되었고， CCCC의 거래처 QQ헌트의 임QQ 과장도 원고가 실사업주라고 진술한 것으로 기재되었다. 그런데 위 조사종결보고서에는 CCCC의 직원틀이나 위 임RR 과장이 작성한 진술서 등이 첨부되어 있지 않은 반면， 위 직원들과 임영마가 작성한 확인서에 의하면， 그 들은 위 세무조사 당시 세무공무원에게 원고가 CCCC의 실제 사업자라고 진술한 바 없다는 것이다(갑 제22 내지 25호증). 또한 피고 종로세무서장이 원고가 CCCC를 운영하면서 2006년 제2기부터 2007년 제 2기까지 실물거래 없이 EETEXTILE， TT섬유， DD， UU무역， 주식회사 VV엔에프 로부터 세금계산서를 교부받았다는 내용으로 원고를 고발하였는데， 서울중앙지방검찰청에서는 2010. 11. 18. 박HH이 원고 명의를 빌려 CCCC를 운영하였다는 이유로 원고에 대하여 혐의없음 처분을 하였다(갑 제6， 7호증). 위와 같은 사정에 의하면， 원고가 CCCC의 실제 사업자라고 보기에는 어려운 면이 있고， 오히려 박HH이 CCCC의 실제 사업자라고 볼 여지가 더욱 많다고 할 것이다.

(3) Park HH and the Plaintiff drafted a document on the title "II transfer system", and the date the document was prepared on November 23, 2008, and the main contents of the document were as follows: (a) jointly managing taxes, the amount of tax, the amount of market unsettlement, the amount of bank liabilities, and the management until May 2008; (b) terminated the relationship from June 2008 (including "in the way during which the Plaintiff would go through"), and (c) paid KRW 99,00 per month to the wife from May 20 to June 20, 2008. However, according to the above circumstances, from May 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009, the Plaintiff was operating from the new bank account opened in the name of the Plaintiff to Hah K in the name of Hah, and the Plaintiff was transferred to Hah K.

[3]

(1) In the above case, it is recognized that the business registration using the trade name on January 5, 2005 asCC was completed in the name of the plaintiff, and that Parkh was the actual business operator ofCC until June 2008, and that the plaintiff was the actual business operator ofCC.

(2) If so, in 2007, income, profit, property, act, and transaction about the operation ofCC only belongs to the Plaintiff, and the person who actually belongs to it is H. As such, in 2007 and global income tax belonging to 2007, hH is a taxpayer and hH is applied to the first and second value-added tax on the operation ofCC, 2007 and 2007. Therefore, the disposition of this case, which recognized the Plaintiff as a taxpayer, is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition after cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff's claim.