2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax ○○○○ on March 1, 2014 on the Plaintiff on March 7, 2014 and the imposition of value-added tax ○○○○○○○ on April 1, 2014 by the former Defendant on March 7, 2014 and the imposition of value-added tax ○○○○○ on April 1, 2014 are revoked.

A. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff, in the name of “mentor, △△△△△△△△△△ located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, transferred the business registration of sports goods and the retail stores of golf products (hereinafter referred to as “scarridong”) to the Seocho-gu △△△△△△△△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “Saridong”) on April 2, 2014.

B. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a final return of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax for the previous 2013 place of business, and the Defendant issued a payment notice to the Plaintiff on March 7, 2014 (including additional tax ○○○○○○ (including additional tax ○○○○○) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant payment notice”).

C. In addition, on April 1, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the instant notice of payment on August 25, 2014, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the instant notice of payment on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant notice of payment and the instant disposition of imposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 20, 21 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual operator of the previous Tridong workplace and the Haridong workplace is A, and the Plaintiff was employed by Pacific and worked as a health radar, and lent the Plaintiff’s name at the request of Pacific while working as a health radar. Therefore, the instant payment notice and the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff who is not an actual business operator are illegal against the principle of substantial taxation.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Whether the part demanding revocation of principal tax among the instant notice of payment is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the payment notice of this case does not constitute a taxation subject to appeal, and that the revocation claim is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) In the case of taxation by method of filing a return, the tax liability is determined when the taxpayer files a return on the tax base and amount of tax with the tax authority. As such, the taxpayer’s notification to pay the same amount of tax as the reported matters without any correction is merely a collection disposition for collecting the final tax, and cannot be deemed a taxation subject to a revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004).

2) According to the Health Board, Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value-added tax for which the Plaintiff seeks revocation in the instant case constitutes taxes by filing a return method of tax payment, and therefore, the taxpayer is obligated to pay the tax amount determined at the time when the taxpayer files a return on the tax base and tax amount to the tax authority. Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 4 and 6-1, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of the value-added tax for the 2nd period of 2013 business place via KimB, which is a tax agent KimB, on January 24, 2014, and the Defendant did not pay the said tax amount, and thus, it is recognized that the instant notice of tax payment was given in addition to

Thus, among the notice of this case, the part of the principal tax of value-added tax 000 won in the notice of this case notified the defendant to pay the same tax as the reported tax without revising the plaintiff's reported tax, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is subject to a revocation lawsuit, apart from the fact that the plaintiff makes a request for correction pursuant to the provisions of Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the grounds that the above notice of payment was erroneous, it cannot be claimed for revocation on the premise that the part of the notice of this principal tax falls under the disposition of imposition. Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part of seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax 200 won in the second-

However, in the case of the notice of payment of additional tax on 000 won among the instant notice of payment (hereinafter referred to as the "payment notice of additional tax"), since the payment notice was determined and notified as to the value-added tax not paid pursuant to Article 47-4 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it constitutes a taxation subject to a revocation lawsuit, and therefore, the lawsuit seeking the revocation of this portion is lawful.

5. Whether a notice of additional tax payment and the instant disposition are lawful.

가. 국세기본법 제14조 제1항은 '과세의 대상이 되는 소득・수익・재산・행위 또는 거래의 귀속이 명의일 뿐이고 사실상 귀속되는 자가 따로 있는 때에는 사실상 귀속되는 자를 납세의무자로 하여 세법을 적용한다'라고 하여 실질과세의 원칙을 천명하고 있다. 따라서 소득이나 수익, 재산, 행위 또는 거래 등의 과세대상에 관하여 귀속 명의와 달리 실질적으로 지배・관리하는 자가 따로 있는 경우에는 형식이나 외관을 이유로 귀속 명의자를 납세의무자로 삼을 것이 아니라, 실질과세의 원칙에 따라 실질적으로 당해 과세대상을 지배・관리하는 자를 납세의무자로 삼아야 할 것이다. 그리고 그러한 경우에 해당하는지는 명의사용의 경위와 당사자의 약정 내용, 명의자의 관여 정도와 범위, 내부적인 책임과 계산 관계, 과세대상에 대한 독립적인 관리・처분 권한의 소재 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 하는데, 이러한 경우에도 과세요건사실의 존부 및 과세표준에 관하여는 원칙적으로 과세관청이 증명할 책임을 부담하지만, 과세관청이 사업명의자를 실사업자로 보아 과세를 한 이상 거래 등의 귀속 명의와 실질이 다르다는 점은 그 과세처분을 받은 사업명의자가 주장��증명할 필요가 있다(대법원 2014. 5. 16. 선고 2011두9935 판결 참조). 나. 살피건대, 갑 제9, 14호증, 갑 제15호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재 및 증인 조CC의 증언에 의하면, 임AA이 2014. 4. 25. 자신이 서울 강남구 역삼동 837-18 서희 멘○○9에 대한 실질적인 소유주이고, 원고는 멘○○의 직원으로서 명의를 빌려준 것이며, 위 사업장에서 나오는 세금 및 각종 벌금, 기타 공과금에 대해서 책임지고 지불할 것을 확인한다는 취지의 사실확인서를 작성한 사실, 이DD, 민EE, 유HH, 김II, 김JJ은 멘○○과 터닝○○의 실질적인 운영자는 임AA이고, 원고는 임AA의 직원이었다는 취지의 확인서를 작성한 사실, 증인 조CC 역시 이 법정에서 서울 강남구 역삼동 서희△△△에 있는 멘○○9과 서울 서초구 우면동 우면△△△△에 있는 피트니스센터의 실제 경영주는 임AA이었고, 원고는 위 피트니스센터에서 헬스트레이너로 근무하고 있었다고 진술한 사실은 인정된다.

(5) On the grounds that the Plaintiff’s sales of the above △△△△△ Factory was not in conformity with the purpose of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff’s trade name at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was an employee of the above △△△△△△△△△△, and that the Plaintiff did not directly engage in the sale of the above △△△△△ Factory, and that the Plaintiff submitted a copy of the lease agreement or a copy of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license to the △△△△△△△△, which was not in conformity with the Plaintiff’s business registration agreement or the 6th place of business, on February 21, 2013, on the grounds that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to deem that the 1st place of business and the above 1st place of business were in accord with the Plaintiff’s name and the 1st place of business, and that the 1st place of business and the 2nd place of business were in accord with the Plaintiff’s title of the contract and the 6th place of business.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition corresponding to the portion of the principal tax of KRW 000,000, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on March 7, 2014 by the Plaintiff on March 7, 2014, is unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.