A. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a business entity of “C” with the 5th floor in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu.

B. C filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax in 2012, and delayed issuance of the tax invoice to Nonparty NEE and NHN. Accordingly, on January 2, 2014, the Defendant applied the additional tax on the issuance of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012, issued a revised notice of KRW 3,943,980 (hereinafter “instant value-added tax”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on April 7, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on June 16, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C is merely D and E, and the Plaintiff is merely the nominal lender, and the value-added tax of this case should be imposed on D and E under the principle of substantial taxation. The instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

3. Determination

A. Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stating that “If the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment and to whom

Therefore, in case where there is a person who substantially controls and manages the subject of taxation, such as income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner on account of form and appearance, not the nominal owner, but the person who substantially controls and manages the subject of taxation in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation, should be the person liable

And whether it is such a case is the details of the nominal use and the terms of the agreement of the parties, and the extent of the nominal owner.