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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the first quarter of June 24, 2010 against the Plaintiff and the second quarter of September 2009 as well as the imposition of value-added tax on the second quarter of September 1, 2012, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. From February 2009, the Plaintiff operated a “BB gas station” at O-O at O-O (hereinafter “instant gas station”) and closed on April 20, 2010.

B. In the first and second taxable periods of value-added tax, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice that is the aggregate of the supply values from OOOO members, DD Energy Seoul Branch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD Energy”) and from OEE Energy Seoul Branch (hereinafter “EEE Energy”) during the first and second taxable periods of value-added tax, and reported and paid each value-added tax for the first and second taxable periods of 2009 after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. From February 25, 2010 to March 25, 2010, the Defendant: (a) found CCC and DD Energy as so-called “data,” and (b) deemed each tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from that tax invoice as a false tax invoice; and (c) deducted the input tax amount; and (d) notified the Plaintiff on June 24, 2010 that the input tax amount was not deducted; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the first value-added tax OOO in 2009 and the second value-added tax OOOO in 209 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above dispositions”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 6, 2010, but was dismissed on December 23, 2010.

E. After that, the Defendant, as a result of conducting an additional tax investigation, found the EE Energy Data to be the EE Energy Data, deemed the tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from him as a false tax invoice, and deducted the input tax amount, and issued an additional notice of correction and notification of OO of the value-added tax No. 209 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 3”).

F. On October 1, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 27, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual business operator of the gas station of this case takes over the gas station of this case from the FF, UG, or from them, and the plaintiff only lent the gas station in the name of the business operator. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case against the plaintiff is unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Regarding the first and second dispositions of this case

Since a final and conclusive judgment dismissing a claim for revocation of a taxation disposition has res judicata effect as to the legal nature of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3669, May 16, 2003). Accordingly, even if a party files a revocation lawsuit on grounds different from those of the final and conclusive judgment, the court cannot render a judgment inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment due to res judicata effect.

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 by asserting that each tax invoice received from CCC and DD Energy under the premise that the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur of the instant gas station as the court 201Guhap1308, and that the Plaintiff is not a false tax invoice, even if the false tax invoice was not known, there were justifiable grounds for not knowing such circumstances. However, on September 28, 201, the lower court was sentenced to the dismissal ruling on September 28, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was all dismissed. As such, since the instant Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 became final and conclusive due to the confirmation of the dismissal ruling, it cannot be said that the instant court made a judgment inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant Disposition by asserting that the instant Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 is unlawful, without any justifiable reasons, further examining this part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of such disposition.

2) As to the third disposition of this case

Since the plaintiff himself asserts that he is not the actual business operator of the gas station of this case, he is insufficient to recognize that he is not the actual business operator of the gas station of this case but the FF from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the taxation period of the disposition of this case No. 3 of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that he is not the plaintiff. Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and No. 5, the plaintiff invests funds to FF in relation to the operation of the gas station of this case, and received periodically an amount equivalent to a certain ratio of profits from FF. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's disposition of this case was against the substance over form principle during the taxation period of this case, since he maintained the business registration of the gas station of this case within the second half of 209, which is the taxable period of the third disposition of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion that the above disposition of this case was not a direct business operator of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.