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

The following facts may be recognized, in full view of all the arguments between the parties, or the whole purport of the arguments between the parties, or between Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, and Eul evidence 13:

A. The business registration was completed in the name of the plaintiff around January 2005 in the case of Jongno-gu Seoul OOOOdong 000 OOO integrated market 000 dong 000 dong 'DDD' (hereinafter "the place of business of this case").

B. The head of Sungdong Tax Office confirmed the fact that he issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 000 without real transaction at the instant place of business in the first VAT taxable period of the value added tax in 2007, with the result of the investigation of material suspicion of Nonparty EETXE, and the fact that the Seoul Regional Tax Office issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 000 without real transaction at the instant place of business in the second VAT taxable period of the value added tax in 2007.

C. Based on the investigation findings on each of the above data, the head of the tax office, the head of the tax office, and the head of the tax office, upon deducting the input tax amount under each of the above tax invoices from the input tax amount, on February 1, 2010, imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On January 2005, the non-party Park G, who established a public store and run the original wholesale business, practically operated the place of business of this case from January 31, 2007 to December 31, 2007, since it was difficult to operate the business due to unreasonable investment and the default of the company, which was an employee, and the actual operator of the place of business of this case from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, while the actual operator of the place of business of this case was not the plaintiff, the tax disposition of this case on the different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) According to the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the determination of a taxpayer should be based on legal substance, not external appearance, and if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer. However, the fact that the ownership of the transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom the transaction actually belongs, shall be the claimant bear the burden of proof.

(2) From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the taxable period of each of the instant dispositions, the fact that the title holder of the instant place of business is the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff. Therefore, as seen earlier, and ParkGG in the instant case.

The fact that the plaintiff is an actual operator of the sags and only lent the business name to the employees of the workplace of this case must be proved by the plaintiff. However, each of the above evidence is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff's assertion was not able to believe it as it is in light of the following circumstances, or that the plaintiff's testimony was made from January 1, 2005 to January 17, 2005, and evidence Nos. 22 to 24 (Verification of Facts) and evidence Nos. 17 (Verification of Facts), and evidence Nos. 17 (Verification of Facts) Nos. 14 to 26 (Verification of Facts), and evidence Nos. 26 (Verification of Facts), and evidence Nos. 26 (Verification of Facts). However, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to support that the plaintiff's above assertion was made in the name of the workplace of this case from January 1, 2005 to 207.

(A) The following facts are recognized if each entry in Eul evidence 11 and 13 added the whole purport of the pleading:

① From July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 at the instant workplace, the head of the tax office, around August 2007, investigated the value-added tax from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 at the instant workplace. At the time, the employees of the instant workplace stated that the Plaintiff is a person who is actually the president and is not aware of Park G, and the head of the Young-American department, who is the customer employee of the instant workplace, also stated that the Plaintiff is the actual business owner. In the process of the investigation, even though the tax officials determined the Plaintiff as the actual business operator according to the statement of the employees and the customer employees of the instant workplace, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the outcome of the investigation, and the Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation confirming that the sales omission was made to the tax official as the business operator.

② According to the overall list of the instant business establishment, the Plaintiff appears to have been the largest investor of the Dong workers company from December 2003, and on December 31, 2003, and on December 31, 2004, each reference point is 25% (50,000 shares/200,000 shares) respectively, while the Plaintiff’s share ratio is 40% (80,000 shares/2000 shares/2000 shares) respectively, and was registered as the largest shareholder of the Dong workers company, and the Plaintiff appears to have been the largest investor of the Dong workers company from December 2003 (i.e., the Plaintiff and Park G were unilaterally stolen to avoid the status of the Plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder in the process of establishing Dong workers (i.e.,, the Plaintiff and ParkG companies), but the Plaintiff’s shareholding ratio as of December 31, 201 and 20G and 201.

(B) According to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 8 through 10 ( Front of each passbook), the Industrial Bank of Korea's free deposit passbook (Account Number 000), the business account of the workplace of this case, opened in the name of the plaintiff, is recognized to have affixed the seal of ParkG with its employee seal on the Bank's free deposit passbook (Account Number 000), and the ordinary deposit passbook of the new bank (Account Number 000), and on the other hand, it is hard to conclude that the plaintiff and the plaintiff jointly used each of the above passbook's loan accounts with the following circumstances, i.e., most of these accounts were made through the Internet banking and telephone transfer or cash TPP to collect money, and it is difficult to view that the above accounts were made through the Internet banking and the telephone transfer, and that the Industrial Bank of Korea's free deposit passbook cannot be seen to have been affixed with its own seal on the front of the passbook, even after the loan limit of KRW 00,000, and that each of the above passbook was jointly used by the plaintiff and each of this case's account.

(C) Although the Plaintiff used a name that became a director in the position at the time, and submitted a producer’s confirmation document (Evidence A No. 17) that produced it together with that name (Evidence A 3), there is no additional document that can be known that it was actually used at the time of the above name, and the content of the above confirmation document is merely a unilateral statement that is not supported by objective data, and it is difficult to believe it as it is.

(라) 2005. 1. 1.부터 2007. 12. 31.까지 이 사건 사업자의 실질적 사업자가 박상 동이었다는 내용이 담긴 갑 제4， 5호증(각 확인서)， 갑 제14 내지 16호증(각 확인서)， 갑 제22 내지 제24호증(각 확인서)， 갑 제26호증(사실확인서)의 각 기재와 증인 박GG 의 일부 증언은 앞서 본 세무조사 당시 이 사건 사업장의 직원들이나 거래처 직원의 진술이나 원고가 보여준 언동과 배치되는데다가 위 각 증거의 작성자들이 원고로부터 세무업무를 위임받은 세무사들(임HH， 정III) 내지 원고의 직원들(김QQ， 이RR， 강SS， 조TT)로서 원고와 거래관계가 있거나 원고의 지휘 ㆍ 감독을 받는 위치에 있고， 박GG이 현재 무자력 상태에 있는 점 등을 고려할 때， 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵다.

(마) 원고는 자신을 사업자로 보지 아니한 검사의 결정{갑 제6， 7호증(각 불기소이유통지)}을 들고 있으나， 당시 검사는 이 법원에서 모두 믿지 아니하는 박GG의 진술， 세무사 임HH 작성의 확인서 기재， 김QQ • 강SS 작성의 각 확인서의 기재에 터 잡 아 그와 같이 판단한 것에 불과하다.

(F) The written evidence No. 12 (documents on the handovered transfer) cannot be trusted in light of the following circumstances.

① In the column of the date of the preparation of the lower end of the above documents, the said documents are written “not on November 23, 2007,” but on November 23, 2008,” and there is no objective data to verify the actual date of preparation.

(2) The contents contrary to the above speech and behavior of the plaintiff at the time of the tax investigation, and the fact that the plaintiff had previously been the largest shareholder of the Dong branch, a telegraph of the workplace in this case.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.