The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) On the second ground of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff was a real business operator who operated regular retail business under the trade name of the Gyeonggi-do reinforced Mining Business, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above mining business operator was operated by the non-party 1, the business operator of the business operator of the non-party 1. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and the judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, misconception of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles. The arguments are groundless

(2) On the third ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff collected and sold 1983.1 to 6.30 of the same year from 1983.2 to 10 of the same year, the court below reported 10,720,384 won to the tax office, and omitted 42,205,956 won from 128,180 won to 31 of the same year, and reported 33,50 won of the above 4,678,264 won of the above 19.2 of the sales from 1984 to 6.30 of the same year, and the court below rejected 2 of the above 94,678,264 won of the above 2 of the sales from 1984 to 6.30,00 won of the above 2 of the sales from 30,000 won of the non-party 1,767,47,47, and 364, etc. of the above sales from 19.

(3) On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff is running regular retail business in the name of the KIB from July 1, 1981 to the KIB under the name of the KIB, and where the plaintiff is operating a business under the name of the KIB without registering the business under his/her own name, and the tax authorities determined that the disposition of this case, which ordered the plaintiff to pay penalty tax by calculating the penalty tax equivalent to 1/100 of the value of supply in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, is lawful.

However, Article 22 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that if a new entrepreneur fails to file an application for registration within the period stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the Act, 1/100 for an individual and an amount equivalent to 2/100 for a legal entity shall be added to the payable tax amount for the supply price from the date of commencing the business to the date of filing an application for registration to the date of preliminary return to which the date of application for registration belongs. Article 6 (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act

However, Article 7(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the matters concerning an application for registration, and Article 7(3) of the same Decree provides for the matters concerning an application for registration, where the head of a tax office upon receipt of an application under paragraph (1) is different from the fact that the application was investigated, he/she shall issue a business registration certificate according to the fact that the application was investigated, and where the business operator fails to make a registration under Article 5(1) of the Act, the head of a tax office may investigate and register the application. In light of the above provisions, in the case of a disguised registration, the tax office which investigated the contents of the application for registration can make a registration under the name of the actual business operator, and the tax office which conducted the investigation of the application for registration, did not issue the registration certificate to the disguised registrant, and it cannot be viewed as a ground for imposing additional tax on

As a result, the court below's determination that penalty tax may be imposed on a disguised registrant as a sanction for disguised registration is based on a misunderstanding of legal principles. Therefore, the argument that points this out is with merit.

(4) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the plaintiff's claim for revocation of additional tax is reversed, and that part is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal against the remaining claims is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)