2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On March 2006, the Plaintiff was awarded a voluntary auction Nos. 996-4 and 802 of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On the instant building, from around 17, 2006, to around 15, 2007, the “○○○○○” entertainment tavern (hereinafter “instant main store”) was operated under the name of the principal store from around 17, 2006 to around 15, 2007, and during the same period, a total of KRW 1,012,918,000 in the name of the instant main store was prepared.

C. However, the judgment was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the Suwon District Court on June 2007 and its judgment became final and conclusive around that time (U.S. District Court Decision 2007No2074).

D. On October 1, 2008, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as the actual operator of the instant main point on the basis of the above judgment; (b) the statement of the AA at an investigative agency; and (c) the credit card company data; and (c) imposed and notified the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 9,024,100 on the first disposition (hereinafter “the first disposition”); and (d) made the same disposition as indicated in attached Table 1. (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

E. On November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 01, 2008, but was dismissed on November 28, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 15 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff principal

The plaintiff merely leased the building of this case to the "instructor leader", and the actual operator of the main shop of this case is illegal each disposition of this case by the defendant who imposed tax on the plaintiff as the instructor, even though the plaintiff is not the actual operator.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2. The entry is the same as the relevant laws;

C. Determination

1) In order to recognize the Plaintiff as a taxpayer in the instant case, it should be proved that the Plaintiff was actually operating the instant main points in the instant building as the actual owner of the instant building, or that the Plaintiff was actually operating the instant main points in the instant building even though the Plaintiff was not the actual owner of the instant building, and that the instant credit card sales slip was the result of sales of the instant main points. However, the main issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff actually operated the instant main points, and thus, it is determined in accordance with the principles of tax law and evidence law only on this issue.

2) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the fact of taxation requirements exists on the taxable person. On the other hand, a statement made by a person who is not a taxpayer during the investigation process by an investigation agency or a tax authority is merely a statement made by the person who is not a taxpayer, unless there is evidentiary evidence that conforms to the statement or there is no supplementary investigation such as confirmation of facts about the taxpayer, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a taxation data on the taxpayer unless there are other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du5022, Jul.

3) In the instant case, whether the Plaintiff is the actual manager of the headquarters of the instant case.

According to the above evidence and the statements in Nos. 4, 5, 10, 12, and 14, the following facts may be recognized:

① In collusion with 0CC, MaximumDD, KimE, etc., the High Court: (a) made a false lease agreement on the instant building in the name of the KB; and (b) registered the KB as the actual operator of the instant main store; (c) provided the actual operator of the instant main store with the name of the KBB’s business registration and the name of the KB card merchant; and (d) the KA paid the remaining amount to the actual operator in cash after deducting the amount equivalent to 13% of the sales amount after taking over the credit card sales slips generated from the instant main store from the actual operator of the instant main station; and (d) the KA made a statement to the effect that the KA was the actual operator of the instant main station in the process of undergoing an investigation into the said act as a violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, etc.

On the other hand, the following facts are also acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4-1, and the witness witness witness testimony's testimony as a whole.

① On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff registered as a business operator to the effect that the instant building carries on real estate rental business. ② The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,538,461 in total as value-added tax with respect to the said real estate rental business during the taxable period from May 01, 2006 to October 30, 2008. ③ The Plaintiff was not prosecuted with respect to suspected facts that the instant main store was leased by the KB from the KB. ④ The Suwon District Court Decision 2007Kadan1677 decided by the KA does not specify the actual operator of the instant main store. ⑤ The KA testified testified to the effect that the actual operator of the instant main station is not the Plaintiff, and that the actual operator stated as the Plaintiff at the time of the police investigation.

In addition to the circumstances where a supplementary investigation, such as confirmation of facts against the plaintiff, was not conducted with respect to the plaintiff's statements in the above criminal procedure against the late A, it cannot be easily admitted as evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff was the actual operator of the main office of this case, and the fact of the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was operating the main office of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the actual manager of the household of this case is illegal as it goes against the principle of the base taxation.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.