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

A. A. Around January 2012, the Defendant conducted a value-added tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s mother, Nonparty YB’s business registration under the name of the Nonparty YB, the Plaintiff’s mother, the Chang-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City O-dong O-dong 00 O-dong 2 (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

B. As a result of the above investigation, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff is a business operator of the instant workplace, and imposed 000 won of value added to the second year of 2006 on January 20, 2012, and imposed 000 won of value added to the second year of 2007 on April 2, 2012, 2007, 2000 of value added tax for 2007, and 1st year of 2008, 2000 of value added tax for 2008, and 1st year of 2009, 2000 of value added tax for 1 year 200, 2009, and 200 of global income tax for 200 years, and 2000 of global income for 200 years and 2000 of global income for 207.

C. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on June 15, 2012, and filed a request for a trial on April 25, 2012 with the Tax Tribunal on each of the dispositions as of April 2, 2012, but was dismissed on September 28, 2012.

D. On the other hand, around May 6, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that part of the sales subject to the instant disposition was a transaction of a duty-free item under the Value-Added Tax Act, and reduced the amount of KRW 00 among the value-added tax for the first time in 2007, KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the second time in 2007, and KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the second time in 2008, and KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the first time in 209, and KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the second time in 209, and KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the first time in 209.

[Grounds for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and arguments described in the non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 2, and Eul evidence 13-1 through 6, and Eul evidence 13-1 to 13

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The proprietor of the instant place of business was illegal, since the proprietor of the instant place of business borrowed the name of Y or YB, a business owner, who is the business owner, and the Defendant imposed value-added tax and comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff based on the sales of the instant place of business.

2) The sales account book that the Defendant used as the basis of the instant disposition is written voluntarily by KimO in order to receive a large amount from the Plaintiff while claiming a division of property against the Plaintiff, and contains a large amount of profits from the sale of tax-free items, such as foodstuffs, among the sales amount that the Defendant used as the basis of the instant disposition, and the calculation of the Defendant’s sales amount is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) First, we examine who is the operator of the instant workplace.

Considering the above evidence, Gap evidence No. 16-1, Eul evidence No. 17-2, Eul evidence No. 17-2, Eul evidence No. 3-5, Eul evidence No. 9-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff registered the workplace of this case as representative from April 29, 2002 to September 30, 2003, but changed its business registration as representative on the plaintiff's mother on October 1, 2003 (the age No. 66), and ② after October 1, 2003, the plaintiff was without any other occupation, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was subject to taxation in cash between July 2, 2006 to June 20, and that the plaintiff was using the plaintiff's property management at the place of business, and that the plaintiff was using the plaintiff's property management at the place of business under KimB's name, and that the plaintiff was using the plaintiff's property management at the place of work in this case No.

2) Next, we examine whether the Defendant’s calculation of the sales amount is unlawful.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence: (i) the Plaintiff imposed tax on KRW 00 on the sales of the Plaintiff from July 2006 to June 2010 based on the sales account books kept in the instant workplace at the time of the investigation into the site of the instant workplace; (ii) the KimO, who managed the instant workplace, prepared the said account books; and (iii) the Plaintiff himself, submitted the said account books as evidence in the case of property division under de facto marital relationship with KimO; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s submission of the said account books as evidence; and (v) the Plaintiff’s submission of the tax-free statement as to the cash deposited in the Plaintiff’s account from July 2006 to June 2010; and (v) the credit card sales deposited in the Plaintiff’s account under the name of HBB; and (v) the Plaintiff’s submission of the reduced amount between 200 and 30% of the sales revenue of the instant workplace; and (v) the Plaintiff’s submission of tax-free items to the account books should be recognized as legitimate.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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