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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff: ① OOO(including additional taxes), OO(including additional taxes), OO(including additional taxes), 2008, 2008, OOO(including additional taxes), 2009, 2009, OOO(including additional taxes), 2009, 209, OOO(including additional taxes), 2007, 207, 2007, OOOO(including additional taxes), 2007, 208, 2008, OOO(including additional taxes), 207, 2008, 2008, OOO(including additional taxes), 209, 2009, 3000, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, respectively, is revoked.

(1) 205.12. 12. 200: O20, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,000,000 won of global income tax (hereinafter referred to as "20,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,00000,0000,00000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on September 1, 201 upon filing an objection on June 30, 201, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on September 17, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7-5, 6, 7, and 8-1, 3, 4, 7, 19 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each disposition of this case shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Since KimCC operated Dgallon by using its business registration and the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name, the instant rent is not the Plaintiff’s income amount; (2) the opening date of Dgallon’s business on October 23, 2007, which was disposed of retroactively until December 1, 2005; and (3) the instant rent is the price for art education received from art students and gallons while conducting practical education for art students and gallons, and displaying their damp products for convenience; and (2) the EEE Research Institute’s event was transferred to a travel company, etc., or remitted the money by being transferred to a travel company, etc. under the Plaintiff’s name for convenience; and (3) the said rent is not the income subject to tax exemption under the Value-Added Tax Act, because it is merely the said fee received from the exhibitr for other exhibitions at the request of the exhibitr.

Even if it falls under income, value-added tax OOOO, construction costs, etc. for OOOO shall be deducted from the amount of income, and shall be deducted from the amount of income.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to the reversion of the instant rent

If the title of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the person to whom it is liable to pay taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu8, May 28, 1995): Provided, That the assertion against the person to whom it actually accrues, and the burden of proof is against the nominal owner (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun. 26, 1984).

According to the confirmation of facts of the preparation of the KimCC (Evidence 2-1 of A), although KimCC stated that the case was operated in the name of the plaintiff, the registration of tax-free business operators for Dgallon and the deposit passbook for the rental fee of this case are all made in the name of the plaintiff. ② The plaintiff prepared and submitted a confirmation document to the head of the tax office of Sejongro Tax Office on February 11, 201 that he reported the rental fee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 (this evidence No. 3), and there was no coercion or coercion in the preparation process, it is reasonable to readily deny the value of evidence unless there are any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002); and it is reasonable to deem that the above document belongs only to the plaintiff's account deposit of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, supra).

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was registered as a tax-free business operator on December 1, 2005 with BBgallon on December 1, 2005, but the business place and trade name on October 23, 2007 were changed to Dgallon on October 23, 2007. Thus, it is also possible to impose a tax on the rent incurred prior to October 23, 2007."

“EE Research Institute or Exhibition’s money; however, there is no evidence to confirm the place of use; 000 official fees are paid to the account deposited in the Plaintiff’s name.

00 Exhibition Expenses

Considering the fact that "00 spons," etc. are indicated (No. 5), it is reasonable to see that the instant rent is the Plaintiff's income." (4) With respect to exemption from value-added tax

Article 1(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 26, 2008 and enforced January 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that value-added tax shall be imposed on the supply of goods or services and import of goods; Article 1(3) provides that "services mean all services and other acts having property value other than goods;" Article 2(1) provides that any person who independently supplies goods or services for business purposes regardless of the existence of profit-making purposes is liable to pay value-added tax; Article 7(1) provides that "the supply of services shall be either the provision of services or the use of the goods, facilities or rights due to all contractual or legal grounds; Article 13(1) provides that "the tax base of value-added tax on the supply of goods or services shall be the sum of values falling under each of the following subparagraphs, and Article 13(1) provides that the tax base of value-added tax on the supply of goods or services shall be paid in money, and Article 13(1) provides that the tax base of transaction fees shall be paid by any person:

In light of the fact that the instant case is a health unit, the Plaintiff’s rental fee, the payment of the instant rental fee, and the amount of the instant rental fee up to OO, it is difficult to view it as compensation for actual expenses, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the instant rental fee is connected to EE Research Institute, exhibiters, etc., the instant rental fee constitutes a person who supplies services independently on his own account and on his own responsibility. Furthermore, the instant rental fee is a person who supplies services independently for business, since the exhibition held in Dgrium falls under an educational service that teaches knowledge, skills, etc. to students, etc. in a school, private teaching institute, teaching institute, training institute, teaching institute, or other non-profit organization (Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, Article 12(1)14 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 136(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 5(3)3) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

(A) As to the deduction of the input tax of value-added tax, a person liable for registration under Article 5(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is limited to an entrepreneur liable for the payment of value-added tax, and the person liable for registration under Article 5(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is not liable for registration, the term “registration under Article 17(2)5” means only the business operator liable for the payment of value-added tax. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the business operator is registered under Article 5(1) solely with the business operator’s registration certificate indicated as the term “tax-exempt business operator, regardless of whether the person is a tax-exempt business operator or a tax-exempt business operator.” Thus, the input tax amount generated during the period of registration as a tax-exempt business operator falls under the input tax amount before the registration under Article 17(2)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act is not deducted from the output tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5146, Mar. 12, 2004).

(B) With respect to income tax deduction, the Defendant calculated the comprehensive income tax based on estimation on the failure to submit relevant evidence from the Plaintiff (as stated in the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff acknowledged the estimated determination on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit evidence). Even if the tax authority imposed the estimated tax based on the method prescribed by the law, there is no evidence to deem that it would be unreasonable to use the estimated method (in short, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence No. 27 alone is more cost than the estimated based on the estimation), and the assertion that the Plaintiff did not simply deduct the expense cannot be deemed unlawful merely by itself.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.