Even if there is a defect that the plaintiff mispers the business operator of the workplace of this case, the defect cannot be objectively and objectively deemed null and void.

The issue of whether the father of the plaintiff's father has stolen the plaintiff's name was revealed only when the tax authority should accurately investigate the facts, and even if there is a defect which is merely a formal business operator of the disposition of this case, it cannot be said that the defect is objectively obvious even if there is a defect which is a mistake in the business operator of

2018Guhap60756 Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

8.07.19

208.23.20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each value-added tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff in the separate sheet is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 25, 2009 to March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was registered as a business entity of '○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the instant place of business") with a place of business in ** Gu*******, 2**, 3* (*p) (*).

B. The Defendant imposed a total of KRW 144,878,950 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a non-report on value-added tax related to the instant business establishment as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was employed in a company or attended a university for a period from August 25, 2009 to March 5, 2014) during which the pertinent disposition belongs (from August 25, 2009 to March 5, 2014), and the Plaintiff’s father was unaware of the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant place of business under the Plaintiff’s name following the Plaintiff’s death, and did not receive any document regarding the instant disposition from the Defendant, such as tax payment notice, etc.

Therefore, in accordance with the substance over form principle, taxes on the instant workplace should be imposed on the Plaintiff’s father, not on the Plaintiff’s father, and the instant disposition is null and void.

B. Determination

1) Whether each tax payment notice regarding the instant disposition is lawful

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the ground that the administrative disposition is null and void, and the service of a tax payment notice shall be made to the domicile, residence, place of business or office pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, except in extenuating circumstances. In such cases, if the person to receive the service at the place is not present, it may be served to such employee and other workers or a person living together with the person entitled to make reasonable judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010). In light of the purport of the relevant provisions, such as the Postal Service Act, in a case where the mail is sent by means of registration, the delivery shall be deemed to have been made at that time, barring special circumstances such as return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu131

According to the aforementioned legal principles, each tax notice related to the disposition of this case was sent by registered mail at the Plaintiff’s residence on the Plaintiff’s resident registration from September 2013 to December 2015, 2015, among which the first part of the year 2013 (attached Tables 1 to 8) was completed (the Plaintiff’s mother’s mother, this*) from February 2, 2013, the second part of the year 2013, and the first part of the year 2014 (attached Tables 9 and 10) from September 2, 2014, and the second part of the year 2012 (attached Tables 9 and 10) are recognized.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not directly receive each tax notice on the instant disposition, it cannot be said that there was any error in the delivery of each tax notice. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation on this part is without merit.

2) Whether the instant disposition violates the substance over form principle

In light of the substance over form principle, the determination of a taxpayer should be based on legal substance, not external appearance, so if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the tax-related Acts shall apply to the person to whom it actually belongs. However, the name lending is an act promoting tax evasion under an agreement with the actual business operator, and it is difficult to grasp the substance externally, and the tax authority, barring any special circumstance, imposes tax on the person under whose name the business is deemed the actual business operator, and the burden of asserting and proving that it is possible to taxation on a separate real business operator who is not the actual business operator on the ground that it is different from the actual business relationship, is a person who disputes the taxation of the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun.

In addition, in a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and it can only be clarified whether they are subject to taxation by accurately investigating the relevant facts, if it is necessary to clarify whether they are subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that it would be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation is null and void per annum (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002

The facts that the plaintiff was registered as the representative of the workplace of this case from August 25, 2009 to March 5, 2014 are as seen above, and even if considering all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff including witness * the testimony of the witness *, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was subject to the disposition of this case even though he knew that the plaintiff was merely an illegal use of the plaintiff's name, not the actual business operator of the workplace of this case at the time of the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's father * whether the plaintiff's name was stolen or not was stolen was revealed only when the tax authority should investigate the facts accurately. Thus, even if there is a defect that the plaintiff, who is a mere mere formal business operator of the disposition of this case, was erroneous as the business operator of the workplace of this case, it cannot be viewed as null and void automatically.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.