A. From March 27, 2007 to May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff was registered as a business entity of “B gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the gas station of this case, the Defendant: (a) from September 5, 2009, the Plaintiff would be the actual business operator of the gas station of this case; (b) from March 27, 2007 to September 4, 2009, Nonparty D, the owner of the building of the gas station of this case, was deemed the actual business operator of the gas station of this case; and (c) on January 25, 201, imposed value-added tax from January 2007 to February 2, 2009 on D.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Disposition”). (c)

As a result, D’s objection was filed on June 24, 201, on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude that D was an actual business operator of the instant gas station during the instant taxable period, and the imposition of value-added tax on D was revoked. Accordingly, on September 15, 2011, the Defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 43,502,310, and value-added tax of KRW 180,71,560, and value-added tax of KRW 6,532,680, respectively, on September 19, 201 on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition” and the taxable period, which forms the basis of the instant disposition, D. (hereinafter “instant taxable period”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal, but was dismissed on April 3, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-4, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the actual business operator of the gas station of this case was D, but the defendant accepted the unilateral assertion of D and revoked the disposition of value-added tax and imposed it again on the plaintiff. The disposition of this case must be revoked as unlawful.

B. 1) Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) is applicable to the pertinent legal doctrine.