The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. According to the facts established by the judgment below, the plaintiff was a person who runs the drug trade business under the name of the ○ drug wholesaler in Gwangju City ( Address 1 omitted), and was engaged in the drug trade under the name of the non-party who is an employee, and was registered under the name of the plaintiff as to the business place where a female tree is located, even though the plaintiff started the drug trade business under the name of the ○○ pharmacy at a female city ( Address 2 omitted) on May 7, 1976, under the name of the ○ pharmacy, and was registered under the name of the non-party who is an employee.

The key issue in this case is whether the penalty tax may be imposed on the actual businessman in accordance with Article 22(1) of the above Act when the disguised registration is made.

2. Article 22 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that if a new business operator fails to apply for registration within the period as stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the Act, 1/100 shall apply to an individual for the supply value from the date of business commencement to the date of preliminary return to which the date of application for registration belongs, and the amount equivalent to 2/100 shall be added to the payable tax amount. Article 5 (1) of the Act provides that a new business operator shall register at each place of business within 20 days from the date of commencement of business, and Article 6 (5) of the Act provides that a truster or an agent shall be deemed to have supplied goods or been supplied with goods: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the truster or the principal is unknown, Article 7 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the matters concerning the application for registration, and Article 7 (3) of the same Decree provides that the head of a tax office, upon receipt of an application for registration, shall issue a business registration certificate according to the fact, and Article 5 (4) of the disguised registration under the head of the application.

In addition, the value-added tax is imposed on the business that supplies goods or services as a substitute tax (see Article 1 of the Act), so the personal information on the business entity is not an important requirement in its registration. In addition, if the value-added tax is paid properly in the case of a disguised registration, the actual business entity is not a profit in the same law and the tax office does not have any defect in the number of taxes under the same Act. However, the tax avoidance of the gross income of the actual business entity is expected only.

The theory of the lawsuit provides that the penalty tax may be imposed on a person who violates the obligation prescribed by the tax-related Acts as prescribed by the tax-related Acts as well as the tax-related Acts, although Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes uses Article 47 of the same Act as well as Article 47 of the same Act provides that a person who violates the obligation prescribed by the tax-related Acts

Under this view, the decision of the court below that the defendant's disposition imposing additional tax is unlawful by making a disguised registration without registering the plaintiff is just and it cannot be accepted as a different opinion because there is no misunderstanding of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)

No signature shall be signed upon retirement of a judge of the Supreme Court.