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

A. From April 1, 1993, the Plaintiff engaged in the ○○○dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”).

B. Around July 2003, the Plaintiff moved the place of business to ○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong, but abolished the existing business registration on January 11, 2005 on the ground of the conversion into a corporation.

". The defendant, from April 26, 2005 to May 26, 2005, as a result of the plaintiff's investigation of value-added tax with respect to the plaintiff, deemed that each of the following purchase tax invoices (hereinafter "purchase tax invoices of this case") received for input tax during the second period from the second period from 2002 to the second period from 2003 as non-real transaction data and decided to deduct input tax amount from the input tax amount, and notified the plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation on June 24, 2005."

Purchase Agency

Value of Supply

For the second period, 2002

○○ Comprehensive Technology Corporation

128,232,00 won

For the first term, 2003

○ ○ Closeness

48,020,000 won

○ Industry Co., Ltd.

50,847,00 won

For the second period, 2003

○ Industry Co., Ltd.

80,043,00 won

○○ Unemployment Co., Ltd.

80,012,00 won

Total

387,154,00 won

D. On July 15, 2005, the plaintiff asserted that the purchase tax invoice of this case was not false, and filed a request for pre-assessment review with the defendant on August 30, 2005, but was non-adopted on August 30, 2005. On October 11, 2005, the defendant filed a request for the second quarter value added tax of 24,017,650 won, value added tax of 15,082,100 won for the first quarter of 2003, value-added tax of 22,159,610 won for the second quarter of 203 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). The plaintiff filed a request for a judgment with the National Tax Tribunal on December 13, 2005, but it was rejected on February 21, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(a)the plaintiff's assertion;

In around 2001, the Plaintiff became bad credit holder due to the occurrence of bankruptcy among the off-line pumps businesses, which are automobile parts, from the YT, which are the JP around 2001. If the Plaintiff had changed its trade name from the ○ Special Use to the ○○ Special Use, and operated separate business from the off-line business, respectively, at the independent place of business, the purchase tax invoice in this case was carried on by ○○○, which is not the Plaintiff’s disposition, but to ○, the actual business entity.

B. Relevant statutes

Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and a person to whom it actually belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom it actually belongs as a taxpayer.

C. Determination

(1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the actual business operator can be seen as ○○, not the Plaintiff, in connection with the purchase tax invoice of the instant case, and thus, the issue is examined.

(2) As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 7, and the testimony of yellow money for witnesses is based on each of the following facts, and it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the statement of evidence No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence No. 6-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 7, and Eul evidence No. 9, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On April 26, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the business at the location of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yeongdeungpo-dong 4, whose business place is 32-64; and (b) on December 2000, transferred the business place to ○○dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, but (c) on December 26, 200, the Plaintiff continued to use the business place at the location of the relocated business place.

② Around July 2003, the Plaintiff re-transfered the place of business to ○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○, but discontinued the existing business registration on January 11, 2005 on the ground of the conversion into a corporation.

③ On January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff established a corporation, ○○ Government Co., Ltd., and registered its business in the name of the corporation at the location of the said business place. The Plaintiff was the largest shareholder with 40% of the shares of the same company, who held office as the representative director of the same company until July 6, 2005. The Yellow○ has 30% of the shares of the same company.

④ Sales tax invoices issued in the name of the Plaintiff, even with regard to the unit pumps portion operated at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and all the purchase tax invoices, including the instant purchase tax invoices, were received in the name of the Plaintiff. The receipt and payment of the transaction amount was made without distinguishing it from the pre-specified part’s business through a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff.

⑤ In a case where the Plaintiff integrated the business of the Hemp department and the Hemp department operated by the Yellow○○○, and the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff reported and paid the global income tax by adding up the business income generated in relation to the Hemp department business that ○○ operated each year.

(4) In full view of each of the above facts acknowledged, even if the ○○○ operated the health and construction pumps sector business, it is deemed that the transaction result or profit and loss occurred once to the Plaintiff, so it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff as a mere nominal name holder in relation to the purchase tax invoice of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case where the Plaintiff deemed the Plaintiff as a taxpayer is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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