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

A. From June 3, 2008 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff is a person registered as an individual business operator who engages in the housing construction and sales business under the trade name of XX-Gu from 000-0 to 2009.

B. On May 31, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to pay the global income tax amounting to KRW 20,210,680 (= global income tax amounting to KRW 19,880,80 + KRW 392,400 + KRW 392,400) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the final return of global income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant return”) on August 5, 2010, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not pay the final return of global income tax for the year 2009” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1.14 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant disposition is not only a collection disposition for the collection of taxes finalized by the instant declaration, but also a taxation disposition that is subject to administrative litigation. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

If a business operator reported the tax base of global income tax and the amount of tax payable but failed to pay it accordingly, and the tax authority issued a notice of tax payment along with additional tax paid, it is a combined disposition of collection ordering the payment of the amount of tax determined by a business operator’s return and imposing and collecting additional tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu1313, Apr. 28, 1992). As seen earlier, the instant disposition is a combined disposition of tax payment by combining the tax base of global income tax and the amount of tax payable for global income tax for which the Plaintiff reported in 2009 but did not pay the amount of tax payable, and thus, the Defendant issued a notice of tax payment as a combined disposition of tax collection ordering the payment of the amount of tax determined by the business operator’s return and the imposition and collection disposition of additional tax. The Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not operate the instant place of business at the request of Nonparty KimA, but the Plaintiff was merely operating the instant place of business by lending only the name of the business operator of the instant place of business upon the request of Nonparty KimA, and the Plaintiff did not receive any business income from the instant place of business. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be deemed the person to whom it actually belongs (Article 1114 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, the fact that it is only the title of the transaction subject to taxation and it is a person to whom it actually belongs, has the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun. 26, 1984).

As to the instant case, from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the taxable period for the instant disposition, the Plaintiff must prove that the registered titleholder of the instant business establishment is the Plaintiff and that the instant report was filed in the name of the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is merely a registered titleholder in the form of the instant business establishment that the Plaintiff merely lent the name.

According to the respective statements of Gap 17, 18, 19, 21, 23 through 27, and Gap 20-1 and 20-2, Kim A may recognize the facts that Kim A used the account for his own entry and withdrawal, while directly managing the passbook in the name of the plaintiff. However, in light of such circumstances and the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff is merely a registered titleholder in the form of the place of business of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.

Rather, according to the following facts: (a) Plaintiff 2 paid KRW 1 to 4, 5, 12, 37, and Plaintiff 22-1 to 3, 34-1, 38-5, each of the above 300,000,000 won for the above 200,000,000 won for a new apartment house under the name of 1 to 3,000,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 3,000,000 won for 2,000,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 3,000,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 3,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 3,000,00

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Even if the Plaintiff is merely the nominal lender who merely lent the name of business registration, the instant declaration cannot be deemed as null and void due to a grave and apparent defect for the following reasons, and thus, the instant disposition ordering the payment of the amount of tax finalized by it cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation is without merit.

Generally, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any factual relation such as legal relations or income or act which is subject to taxation is significant and apparent, but in case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead him to be subject to taxation on any legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, the determination of whether it is subject to taxation can only be made clear even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). Further, in cases of global income tax as a tax by method of tax payment, in principle, the liability to pay taxes is determined specifically by the act of filing a tax base and tax amount on his own. Thus, unless the taxpayer’s filing of a tax return becomes null and void as a matter of course due to serious and apparent defects or in its collection disposition itself, it cannot be deemed unlawful, and in this context, the imposition disposition ordering the payment of tax amount determined by the act of tax return cannot be deemed unlawful.

According to these legal principles, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively considered in the statement No. 28 as to the instant case’s health department and the statement No. 28, that is, the Plaintiff’s business registration is completed in the name of the Plaintiff for the instant business establishment, and the Plaintiff is merely an actual business operator, and whether the instant business establishment was not operated, can only be identified if the relevant facts are accurately examined, and there is no apparent defect in appearance in the instant declaration act conducted in the Plaintiff’s name, even if the Plaintiff is merely a business operator, the instant report cannot be deemed as an apparent apparent defect, and thus, cannot be deemed as an inevitable invalidation. Unless the instant disposition itself seems to have any defect, there is no illegality in any disposition of this case ordering the payment of the amount of tax finalized by the instant declaration act.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.