A. Action on the remainder of the disposition of the notice of tax payment of KRW 8,503,687 on August 8, 2008, excluding the additional payment for the erroneous payment for the gross income tax of KRW 8,503,687;

B. The director of the tax office’s office’s dismissal of all lawsuits on the remaining part of the disposition of the tax payment notice of KRW 14,477,570 on March 8, 2007, KRW 26,659,770 on September 4, 2007, KRW 2007, KRW 30,83,150 on March 5, 2008, KRW 2007, KRW 10,000 on June 5, 2008, and KRW 10,160,430 on each disposition of the tax payment notice of KRW 10,00,000 on June 5, 2008.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

A. Trade name is DD; business registration was made in the name of the Plaintiff from December 1, 2006 to April 30, 2008, in view of the business that ○○○○○○○○-si 257-11, 'construction/manufacture', 'construction/processing', and 'building stones processing' (hereinafter referred to as the "instant business").

B. Pursuant to Article 18(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) with respect to the instant business, the director of the tax office notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 7,148,710 as value-added tax for April 3, 2007 and KRW 16,742,270 as value-added tax for 207 as value-added tax for October 4, 2007 (hereinafter “value-added tax notice”).

C. In relation to the instant business, the Plaintiff did not pay the tax despite the confirmation and preliminary return of value-added tax in the name of the Plaintiff, and the head of the DefendantCC notified the Plaintiff of the amount of tax reported as the value-added tax table (1) as the principal tax and the amount of notified tax calculated by adding additional additional tax (3) thereto (hereinafter “value-added Tax Notice”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “value-added Tax Notice”).

D. Meanwhile, in relation to the instant business, the global income tax return for the year 2007 under the Plaintiff’s name was filed on May 29, 2008 with KRW 58,566,523, and the payable tax amount of KRW 8,336,131 (the determined tax amount of KRW 8,389,764 - the already paid tax amount of KRW 53,633), but the said tax was not paid. On August 8, 2008, the head of the Defendant BB tax office notified the Plaintiff that the tax amount of KRW 8,336,131, which was reported as global income tax for the year 2007, plus KRW 167,556, as the principal tax, should be paid for the additional additional tax (hereinafter “tax notice of global income tax”).

2. Of the instant lawsuit, whether each principal tax of the instant tax notice and the global income tax notice is lawful is determined ex officio. As a matter of principle, tax liability is determined by the taxpayer’s act of setting tax base and tax amount on his own. Therefore, even if the tax authority imposed a tax notice by adding additional dues to the amount of tax declared by the taxpayer on the ground that the taxpayer fails to fulfill his/her tax liability, this is merely a mixed disposition of collection ordering the performance of tax liability determined by the return and imposition and collection disposition of additional taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du27128, Apr. 24, 2014). Meanwhile, according to the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”), the portion of the instant tax notice and additional tax on global income, other than those reported under Article 10-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the portion of the instant tax notice and additional tax on global income tax payment, are unlawful.

3. Among the instant notice of the tax payment of value-added tax and the global income tax payment notice, the portion of “additionally paid tax” and whether the said notice was lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If the Plaintiff borrowed the name of business operator from KimE, the Plaintiff only lent the name of business operator to be employed as employee of "DD," and thus, the actual owner of the transaction and income of the instant business is KimE. Unlike this, the portion of "additional tax", "additional tax", "additional tax", and "additional tax" in the Notice of Value-Added Tax Payment of the instant case, notified under the premise that the Plaintiff is an actual business operator, is in violation of the principle of substantial taxation, and the defect is significant and apparent, so the same is null and void.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Generally, a tax assessment conducted on a person who does not have any factual basis, such as legal relations or income subject to taxation, or act, is significant and apparent. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him/her to be subject to taxation with regard to certain legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it can be clarified only when the factual basis is established, it cannot be deemed apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). In particular, the determination of the imposition of additional tax by a tax authority on the premise that an act of filing a return constitutes a serious and apparent legal ground and rationality, and thus, constitutes an unlawful act of filing a tax assessment based on the premise that an act of filing a return becomes invalid based on the premise that an obligation to taxation becomes final and conclusive is unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du7164, Feb. 13, 2014).

In this case, the following facts may be acknowledged if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the descriptions in the Health Units, Evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul's Evidence Nos. 5 through 8, Eul's Evidence Nos. 5 and Eul's Evidence Nos. 5 (including branch numbers).

① From March 2004 to November 2006, KimE, the actual business owner of the instant business, carried on the instant business by lending the name of the business owner from KimF to KimF. From March 2004 to November 2006, KimE requested a change of the business owner’s name due to a large amount of tax, he was employed as an employee if he lent the Plaintiff’s name to the Plaintiff on December 2006, and all obligations and taxes and taxes were responsible for and resolved. The Plaintiff lent the name of the business owner to KimE in response thereto.

② With the Plaintiff’s consent, the registration of business is made under the Plaintiff’s name; the return of global income tax and the final return of value-added tax was made under the Plaintiff’s name; and both money transaction and issuance of tax invoices related to the instant business were made under the Plaintiff

③ Although KimE is deemed to have received benefits in the year 2007, the payment statement of earned income submitted to the tax office at the instant place of business, there is no indication as to whether the Plaintiff received benefits.

④ The nominal name holder may request the change of the taxpayer to the nominal name as the actual business owner by filing a claim for correction against defective reporting acts. However, the Plaintiff did not entirely take such procedures until the Defendants seized the Plaintiff’s real estate and proceed with a public auction.

According to the above facts, there is no fact that the tax authority actively participated or participated in the reporting process of the instant global income tax and value-added tax, and there is no circumstance that the Plaintiff inevitably reported to avoid sanctions, such as additional tax, etc., and the Plaintiff did not assert the invalidity of each instant disposition until the public auction of the Plaintiff’s property commences by the tax authority. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even in light of the disadvantages that the Plaintiff would incur due to the instant disposition and the legal remedies therefor, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act of reporting global income tax and value-added tax, etc., which caused the instant disposition, is objectively apparent and apparent, and each of the instant dispositions based on the reporting act cannot be deemed as serious and clear, and thus, it cannot be deemed as null and void. The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit concerning the remaining portion of the lawsuit of this case, excluding the disposition of tax payment notice of global income tax and the disposition of tax payment notice of value-added tax of this case, is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining claims on the part of the disposition of tax payment notice of this case and the disposition of tax payment notice of global income tax of this case are all without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.