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

A. On January 25, 1995, the Plaintiff: (a) on January 25, 1995, OOB 00-dong BB (hereinafter “Namyang-dong BB”).

On February 23, 2005, the Gangdong-gu Seoul OOOB(hereinafter referred to as "Seoul BB") was opened and operated, and reported that the BB was closed in the Namyang-ju BB. On February 23, 2005, the Namyang-ju BB became registered in the name of the Jeonyang-ju BB in the name of the Jeonyang-ju BB, who was working as an employment doctor on February 23, 2005, and the miscellaneous retail storeCC in the name of the Jeonyang-ju BB was registered in the name of the Jeonyang-ju BB. < Amended by Act No. 9873, Oct. 17, 2009>

B. From May 31, 2011 to June 29, 2011, the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a personal tax integration investigation against the Plaintiff, and determined that the Plaintiff was a real business entity of South Yangju BB andCC, and notified the Defendant of taxation data including the income accrued from the said workplace and the income of Seoul BB and the income of Seoul BB and deducted the necessary expenses of each workplace.

C. On August 10, 201, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 global income tax in 2007, KRW 000 global income tax in 2008, and KRW 000 global income tax in 2009, and KRW 000 global income tax in 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, and the said request was dismissed on November 25, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff closed Nam-ju BB and did not perform medical practice at the above hospital, the Plaintiff did not establish a medical institution in violation of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply). Even if the Plaintiff was establishing a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act, and Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act is unconstitutional in violation of Articles 11 and 15 of the Constitution, and cannot be the basis for the instant disposition.

2) The Plaintiff did not operate BB in the name of the Namyang-ju by lending the name. The Plaintiff substantially operated the Namyang-ju BB by providing medical treatment, such as having been engaged in employment, revenue and expenditure, etc. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s tax liability for the income of the Namyang-ju B is attributed to the Plaintiff.

3) During the period of operation of the Namyang Jeju BB in the name of the DD, both Seoul BB and the Namyang BB fulfilled their obligation to report and pay income tax and other tax, and they did not underreporting. Even if they were negligent in performing their duty to report, the Plaintiff is in a situation in which the operation of the Namyang BB, which constitutes a central hospital in the region, could not be avoided, and thus, there is a justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the part of the obligation to report.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On May 3, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an advisory service contract with the EE EE EE Management Consulting Director KimFF, and the main contents of the advisory service contract (Evidence No. 6) are as follows.

2) Since February 22, 2011, Jeonyang-ju BB was the representative of the business registration in Namyang-ju BB, but the head of the hospital was the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was paid only, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the hospital management, signed the confirmation document and the benefit receipt confirmation document (Evidence No. 5) and submitted it to the public officials of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and submitted it to the public officials of the Seoul Regional Tax Office.

3) Meanwhile, from 2007 to 2010, the Plaintiff filed a comprehensive income tax return on DaD based on the income accrued from 2009 and the income accrued from CC in 2009 and 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, and evidence 6, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) Whether the violation of the Medical Service Act is the issue of the instant case

The purpose of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act, which limits the number of medical institutions in which a doctor can establish, is to prevent those who are not a doctor from being managed by a medical institution in advance at the stage of its establishment by allowing the establishment of medical institutions only within the scope of the place in which a doctor can directly perform the medical act. Accordingly, a doctor who establishes a medical institution in his own name has another medical institution under the name of another doctor and has another medical institution.

Although the fact that a medical institution newly established, such as directly employing its employees and withdrawing profits generated from such business, was directly engaged in the management of the newly established medical institution, it cannot be deemed that a separate medical institution was established by leasing another doctor’s license. However, even if a medical institution newly established under the name of another doctor directly conducts medical practice or hires a unqualified person, the above doctor already established a medical institution under his/her own name constitutes a case where a overlapping medical institution is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do256, Oct. 23, 2003). In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff violated Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act by providing for health care for the instant case, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly engaged in medical practice in the instant case, or that the Plaintiff engaged in medical practice under his/her own supervision by employing a disqualified person, and that the Plaintiff violated Article 38(1) of the Medical Service Act. However, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff violated Article 138(2) of the Framework Act, supra.

2) Whether the Plaintiff had a substantial management of South Yangju BB andCC

국세기본법 제14조의 실질과세의 규정은 소득의 형식적인 귀속자가 아닌 그 실질적 인 귀속자에 조세부담의 의무를 부과하려는 것이므로 소득의 귀속은 형식적인 영업명 의，법률관계에 의하여 결정할 것이 아니라，실질적인 영업활동에 의하여 생기는 이익의 귀속관계에 의하여 결정되어야 한다(대법원 2002. 4. 9. 선고 99도2165 판결 등 참조). 위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대， 앞서 본 처분의 경위와 인정사실에 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 ① 원고는 남양주 BBB과 서울 BBB을 모두 경영하는 것을 전제로 하여 주식회사 EEEE경영컨설팅 소장 김FFF과 자문엽무계약을 체결하였던 점，② 원고와 전DDD이 사용자와 근로자의 관계에 있었던 사정과， 서울 BBB을 개설하는 등 남양주 BBB의 사업자등록을 전 DDD 명의로 등록할 당시의 정황에 비추어 보면， 전DDD이 작성한 사실확인서와 급여 수령확인원의 내용을 신빙할 수 있고， 서울지방국세청 소속 공무원의 강압에 따라 전 DDD이 사실확인서와 급여수령확인원에 서명하였다거나， 사실확인서 등에 기재된 내용 이 진실에 반한다고 볼 만한 근거가 없는 점，③ 남양주 BBB의 사업자등록 명의가 전DDD으로 된 후에도 원고의 성(姓)을 따 만들어진 것으로 보이는 "BBB"이라는 상호를 그대로 사용하였던 점，④ CCCC는 남양주 BBB에 부속된 잡화소매점에 불과한데다가， 2011. 5. 25. 폐업된 이후 2011. 7. 26. 원고 명의로 사업자등록 명의가 변경되기도 한 점，⑤ 원고는 이 사건 제1차 변론기일에서 함께 근무하던 내과의사 전QQ의 명의를 빌려 남양주 BBB을 계속 운영할 수밖에 없었다고 기재된 소장을 진술 한 점 등을 종합하면，원고가 남양주 BBB과 CCCC를 실질적으로 경영하였다고 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 남양주 BBB과 CCCC의 소득은 원고에게 귀속된다고 보아야한다.

3) Whether the imposition of additional tax is lawful

A) Whether the Plaintiff neglected to report income tax

Article 24 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the total amount of income of a resident (including the total amount of pay and the total amount of pension; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be the sum of the amounts imported or imported in the relevant taxable period, and Article 14 (2) of the same Act provides that "the tax base of global income shall be the amount calculated by applying the deductions under Articles 50, 51, 51-2 through 51-4 and 52 from the total amount of the income. In other words, the Income Tax Act adopts the principle of personal taxation to include the resident's total amount of income as the basis for calculating the tax base, and even if the other person has reported all the income, it is reasonable to view that the reported income under the name of the other person has no effect as the income tax return by the taxpayer. In addition, even if the reported income is applied with the highest tax rate, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been negligent in relation to the reported income from the foregoing case.

B) Whether justifiable grounds exist

In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting, and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, a taxpayer’s intentional and negligent act is not considered, and the site, mistake, etc. of statutes does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004). In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff, as a real manager, is deemed to have been aware of the income generated from the South Yangyang BB andCC; and (b) the Plaintiff, as the actual manager, could have been aware of its income; and (c) the applicable tax rate may vary depending on the scale of income when the return was filed separately, it is difficult to deem that there exists justifiable grounds for the Plaintiff to be negligent in performing its duty to report solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was in a situation where the Plaintiff could not be exempt from the operation of the South Yangyang PB, which falls within a regional hospital.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's arguments are without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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