The relevant account is used as it is by using a passbook (G 000-0000-000-000) in the name of the business operator under the name.

(1) The Plaintiff was able to pay the operating profits of the instant workplace, and the Plaintiff was able to pay the operating profits between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff

The settlement of alcoholic beverage price was made by the passbook (NH 000-000-000-00) in the name of the head of the Tong, and 3 the plaintiff

At the time of filing a global income tax return for 2009, its business with income accrued from the operation of the instant place of business

the second quarter of 2009 of this case's place of business

Go also consisting of the Plaintiff’s name, and ④ The Plaintiff from June 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009, shall be KimG.

Y/BC, from October 1, 2009 to January 9, 2010, KimMH’s place of business in this case

Although it is alleged that A had been operated after October 2009, according to Gap evidence No. 14, the records are as follows.

The Do Kim GY used the passbook in the name of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's assertion on the above is presented.

JY alcoholic beverages, when Kim MH operates the instant establishment,

No. A No. notarial deed of money consumption loan agreement asserted as a matter of any obligation of alcoholic beverage purchase

10 No. 10) The date of preparation and the date of debt formation shall be the date after the closure of the instant establishment after the closure of the business.

11. 17. Then, it is difficult to see that the business establishment of this case is related to the operation of the business establishment of this case.

in the sales procedure and the first instance court that there was no omission of sales on the premise that the plaintiff is a real business operator.

The actual business operator of the place of business of this case must reach the first instance on the part of the plaintiff.

Taking account of the fact that n.e., the Plaintiff is asserting that n.e., the instant business

- 5-

The business of the funeral is not simply transferred through the form of lease, but it is not merely transferred to KimGY, etc.

Since it is reasonable to see that the actual business operator was entrusted and operated, it is reasonable to see that the actual business operator is the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the income accrued from the operation of the instant workplace was substantially attributed to the Plaintiff.

The instant disposition based on the premise B is lawful. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

- 2-

Each disposition on imposition of KRW 15,589,800, and KRW 15,140,953 (including additional tax) of the individual consumption tax on May 8, 2014

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff leased an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter referred to as “TRT”) operated in its own name to Kim GY/BC from June 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009, and from October 1, 2009 to January 9, 2010. A person who actually runs the instant place of business during the second taxable period of value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “GY, etc.”) during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009 is Kim GY, OilBC, GGH (hereinafter referred to as “GY, etc.”) and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is an actual business operator is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes.” Therefore, if there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages such income, profit, property, act or transaction, unlike the nominal owner to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, - 3- the nominal owner to whom such income, etc. belongs for the reason of form or appearance is not the person to whom such income, etc. belongs, the person who actually controls and manages the relevant taxable object shall be the person to be liable to pay taxes in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation. In addition, the determination of whether it falls under such a case shall be made by comprehensively taking into account

Meanwhile, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence and the tax base of taxation. This also applies to a case where the tax authority contests that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. and the actual owner of the transaction, etc. are different from the burden of proof, barring any special circumstances, such as a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, as long as the tax authority imposed tax on the nominal owner as the nominal owner, it is necessary to assert and prove that the nominal owner of the business who received the taxation disposition differs from the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge made reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirement. As a result, if it is unclear whether the substance of the transaction, etc. belongs to the nominal owner, and it is impossible to obtain conviction from the judge, then the disadvantage therefrom is back to the tax authority that bears the ultimate burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du935, May 16, 2014). 2)

Rather, the aforementioned evidence and evidence and evidence Nos. 5, 10 through 15, Eul evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 10, the pleadings - 4 - the overall purport of the evidence as follows, i.e., KimGY paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5,130,000 as monthly rent for June 209, and KRW 4,850,000 as monthly rent for July, 209, which appears to be the remainder after deducting management expenses, taxes, credit card payments, etc. from the total sales, not from the fixed amount under the initial lease agreement (8 million won).