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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition entered in the separate sheet against the plaintiff by the defendant against the plaintiff is invalid.

A. On December 12, 2001, the Plaintiff registered a business with the trade name A as the type of business and added 'construction/fire-resistant decoration', but with the type of business on September 22, 2009.

B. On August 1, 2010, the director of the tax office conducted an investigation into AA for the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, found that the purchase tax invoice received by AA B, etc. was false. On August 1, 2010, the head of the tax office deducted the input tax amount for the said tax invoice from the input tax amount, and corrected and notified the value-added tax on the No. 1 notified tax amount listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “

C. On December 3, 2012, the director of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the sales of AA was omitted after conducting an individual consolidated investigation for the Plaintiff in 2009, and the director of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the sales was omitted, and the director of the tax office corrected and notified the value-added tax stated in No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 7, 2013, when the Plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax after filing a final tax return for the second period of value-added tax in 2012, the director of the tax office corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax stated in the attached Table 3 attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “third disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff received a prior notice on the First Disposition and requested a pre-assessment review on June 7, 2010.

However, on July 22, 2010, the director of the tax office did not adopt the request for pre-assessment review.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1-4, 9, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

1) On October 00, 000, the 00-year-old book was divided from the 000-year-old book.

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

During the operation of the “AA” by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, by deceptioned the KCC on June 2009, lent the business fund for the used cars export business, and borrowed the business registration name. The Plaintiff only lent the name of the business registration to the KCC, but did not participate in the used cars export business. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is null and void in violation of the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

A tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations that are subject to taxation shall be deemed to be significant and apparent. However, in a case where there are objective grounds to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual relations that is not subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation or not, if it is necessary to accurately investigate the factual relations, it cannot be deemed that the defect is obvious even if it is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation should be deemed to be void as a matter of course (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24986 Decided July 10, 201)

(2) Determination

Based on the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the purport of each of the above facts of recognition, Eul-5, Eul-6, Eul-9-16 and all of the arguments, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that each of the dispositions of this case is invalid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① Before making the instant disposition 1, the director of the tax office conducted an investigation as to who is the actual operator of AA. In the process, around October 2009, the Plaintiff and the competentCC prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “A” (GGG00) maintains a partnership from June 2009, bears the burden of expenses, and confirm that the profits are operating up to the present time on a distribution basis by 50% after deducting the expense portion.” In particular, at the end of the said written confirmation, the Plaintiff added to the statement that “the funds are 100% Kim 00” to the Defendant, which was written by the investigator of the 00-year administrative secretary against the competentCC. The pre-written confirmation prepared by the investigator of the 00-year administrative secretary, stating that “the used cars and exports are reported by himself, but the Plaintiff invested in the business relationship with the Plaintiff, and that “the Plaintiff is engaged in the business relationship with the Plaintiff.”

② The director of the tax office deemed the representative of AA as the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition No. 1. The Plaintiff, while applying for pre-assessment review, argued that the Plaintiff is not an actual business operator. However, the director of the tax office stated that the Plaintiff and the competentCC are consistently operating the same from the commencement of the investigation to the completion of the investigation, and determined that the Plaintiff is a business operator and decided not to accept the Plaintiff’s request for pre-assessment review.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a request for review on the disposition No. 1 of this case.

Since the AA's request for review was dismissed on the grounds that the representative is unclear, the director of the tax office asserts that the AA was aware that the actual manager was not the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff requested a pre-assessment review on the prior notice of the first disposition of this case, and seems not to have filed a request for review or administrative litigation on the first disposition of this case, and the director of the tax office 00 did not determine that the representative of the AA was the plaintiff and that the substantial operator is unclear as seen earlier.

③ The instant disposition taken against the Plaintiff by the director of the tax office does not relate to the sales of used cars and export business, but to the omission of the sales of interior works related to interior works, which the Plaintiff deemed to have operated, while filing a value-added tax return for the second period of 2009. Thus, it does not go against the principle of substantial taxation alleged by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff, at the time of investigation into the instant disposition No. 2, submitted to the director of the tax office a confirmation document recognizing that the Plaintiff filed a return by omitting the sales of interior works on October 22, 2012, which was the time of investigation into the instant disposition No. 2).

④ With respect to value-added taxes adopted by the method of filing a tax return, in cases where the tax authority considers the liability to pay value-added taxes as determined by a taxpayer’s declaration and orders the performance thereof, even if there are defects in the taxpayer’s declaration act, such defects are not succeeded to the disposition of collection, which is subsequent to the disposition of collection, unless the defects do not constitute grounds for invalidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14394, Sept. 8, 2006).

The Plaintiff filed a return on value-added tax for the second period of 2012, which served as the basis for the instant disposition, with a well-known knowledge that the value-added tax was imposed, as shown in the instant disposition No. 1, to the Defendant again. The head of the tax office 00 reported the value-added tax for the second period of 2012 and did not pay it. The Plaintiff issued a disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax by adding the additional tax through the instant disposition No. 3 to the Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax. The sole reason for the Plaintiff

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the rightCC was deceiving. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the rightCC to use it for the export business of used cars, and received KRW 20 million from the rightCC over three years. In consultation with the rightCC, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the 00 District Court for fraud, but the 00 District Public Prosecutor's Office issued a disposition without consultation on the reason that the Plaintiff was unable to engage in the used cars export business due to the fact that the Plaintiff actually used the money received from the Plaintiff for the used cars export business, but the value-added tax on the used cars export business was not refunded for the used cars export business (Evidence of evidence). It is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was not involved in the used cars export business at all.

6. In light of the above circumstances, at the time when the Defendant rendered dispositions Nos. 1 through 3 of this case, it appears that at least there was an objective reason to mislead the Plaintiff as a taxpayer who operated the instant enterprise, and that the circumstance that the Plaintiff was not an actual business operator, unlike the registration of business, seems to have been revealed only when accurately investigating

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.