Article 57 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 for the second term of February 2005 (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 00 for the first term of January 2006 (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 00 for the second term of February 2006, KRW 00 for the B public parking lot project (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 00 for the first term of January 2007 for the B public parking lot project (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 00 for the second term of February 2007, KRW 00 for the first term of January 2008 (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 00 for the C park parking lot project (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 20 for the second term of February 2005 (including KRW 0 for additional tax), KRW 10 for the second term of 20 for 20 for 20 years (including KRW 200 for each additional tax for 20 for 20 years).

A. On June 2005, the plaintiff's senior village student Gap, who is the plaintiff's senior village student, was awarded the status of "A Park-ro public parking lot" located in 00,000,000 - 00 - 00 - 00 - and 15 -, "B public parking lot" located in 00,000 - 00 - 00 - and registered the business and entered into a contract for the management of parking lots with 00 - 00 - 00 -, and was in charge of the management of parking lots.

B. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, from October 0, 201 to October 0, 2011, conducted a personal tax integration investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff had been operating each of the instant parking lots, he/she borrowed the name of the Plaintiff and registered the business, and concluded a contract for parking lot and consignment management with the head of the Gu under the name of 00, and confirmed the tax return, respectively, that approximately KRW 00 billion (16% of the amount of revenue of the parking lot) was omitted, and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation.

C. Accordingly, on October 0, 201, the Defendant imposed each of the instant dispositions on the Plaintiff.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 0, 2012, but was dismissed on October 0, 2013.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

A lent an amount equivalent to the fees for the parking lot (hereinafter referred to as "entrusted money") to be paid from the Plaintiff to the 00-Gu office, and was awarded a successful bid for each of the instant parking lot and actually engaged in each of the instant parking lot businesses. Nevertheless, the instant disposition of imposition issued on the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff was running the said business by lending the Plaintiff's name is illegal.

B. Determination

1) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff actually engaged in each of the instant parking lot business in light of each of the evidence as seen earlier and each of the evidence Nos. 5 through 27, supra, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① The amount of consignment paid to each of the instant parking lots was KRW 00,000 for three years, and most of the amount was paid by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000,000 among them was paid by Party A, but there was no objective data to verify it).

② In operating each of the instant parking lots, “A” deposited income generated in cash or checks into the Plaintiff’s 00 bank account every day or every check. From October 0, 2006 to October 0, 2008, the total sum of KRW 1,273 deposits and KRW 1,00,000,000. As regards the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account during the parking lot operation period, “A” did not have a seal imprint or cash card and could not directly withdraw from the Plaintiff’s account because he did not know of the password, etc., at the request of the Plaintiff whenever expenses are needed.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid the trust money and its interest. However, while lending the money exceeding KRW billion without an express agreement on the maturity of payment or interest rate, even if considering the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, it does not have any profit in light of trade practice. If there is an agreement on the interest rate, the interest amount to be paid to the Plaintiff should be set to a certain extent. However, in this case, it is difficult to view it as a payment of the money under the interest agreement on the lending and borrowing of money, since there is a big difference in the amount paid to the Plaintiff by each year.

④ On October 0, 2014, the Plaintiff was convicted of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for a period of ten years (Supreme Court Decision 00Da0000 Decided October 0, 200), and appealed from the suspension of the execution of ten years on October 0, 200 (Supreme Court Decision 00No00 Decided October 0, 200), and appealed from the appeal, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to impose the public park parking lot at KRW 00,00,000,000 from October 0, 200 to October 0, 208, and from KRW 00,000,000 to October 0, 207, the Plaintiff could substantially conceal the public parking lot under the Plaintiff’s name, which was the title holder of the Plaintiff’s business registration, and thereby, deposited the public park under the Plaintiff’s name and its income under the said deposit of the Plaintiff’s account.

On October 0, 2007, the Plaintiff evaded the value-added tax of 00 won after the lapse of the final return of value-added tax for the second period of February 2006 by means of fraud and other unlawful means, as shown in [Attachment 3] Nos. 1 through 4, 2006, 1, 2007, 207, and 1, 2008.

On October 0, 2014, the final appeal was dismissed.

⑤ During the first two years from October 0, 2005 to October 0, 2008, Party A stated that the Plaintiff had operated both the Plaintiff and Party A for the investigation procedures and examination procedures of the said criminal case.

6) As the Plaintiff is running the other real estate leasing business, it is probable that the cumulative tax rate would be applied to the registration of each of the instant parking lots in the Plaintiff’s name, and thus, there is room to deem that there is a motive to operate the parking lot under another person’s name (it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff is not subject to the highest tax rate on the income amount of the parking lot in the Plaintiff’s name, even if the Plaintiff is paying the income tax at the highest tax rate, at least in the case of operating the parking lot in the Plaintiff’s name).

7) On October 0, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written confirmation to the National Tax Service that “The actual business operator of a public parking lot and a public parking lot B in the name of the Plaintiff is the principal, and the actual owner of the income and income related to the said business is the principal.”

8. Although the fact that Party A did not receive specific instructions from the Plaintiff regarding the recruitment of parking lot employees or the execution of expenses, it appears that Party A exercised its authority within the scope delegated comprehensively to Party A merely because the operation of the parking lot itself is merely a simple repetition of duties due to matters concerning the management and operation

① Even if the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 00 million still remains in a passbook under the name of Party A, or the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 00 million out of the amount paid to Party A as personnel expenses or expenses was not recognized as expenses for calculating income tax, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff as not an actual business operator solely on the above circumstances alone.

C. Therefore, each disposition of this case issued to the Plaintiff, who is the actual business operator of each of the instant parking lot businesses, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.