Whether the actual business operator of the instant hospital is the Plaintiff

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the circumstances of use in the name of the Plaintiff, the detailed contents of the instant agreement, the degree of involvement in the operation of the KimA and the Plaintiff, and the internal responsibility and accounting relationship between KimA and the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to see that the business operator who actually runs the instant hospital is KimA, and the Plaintiff is merely merely a loan of the name of the Plaintiff.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap56967 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

west ○

000 director of the tax office

December 6, 2016

December 2, 2017

1. On July 30, 2015, the part of the disposition rejecting the correction of the global income tax amounting to KRW 000,000, which was reverted to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2015 by the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. On August 27, 2015, the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office’s revocation of a disposition rejecting rectification of KRW 000,000 for earned income tax (original tax) accrued in 2013 against the Plaintiff and business income tax (original tax).

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Youngpool Tax Office are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/40 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Young Military Tax Office shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant Young Military Tax Office, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Young Military Tax Office shall be borne by the Defendant Youngnam Tax Office

Cheong-gu Office

On July 30, 2015, the part of the disposition rejecting the correction of the global income tax amount of KRW 000,000 as of July 30, 2015, which was rendered against the Plaintiff by the Head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office shall be revoked.

The director of the Gangnam District Tax Office shall be as provided in paragraph (2) of this Article.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name of ○○○○○ dental clinic (hereinafter “instant hospital”) (hereinafter “instant hospital”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu as the location of 11 and 11th (00 dong), and closed the business on December 24, 2013.

B. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office the amount of KRW 000,000 for earned income tax (original tax) and business income tax (original tax) for the year 2013 as the source tax for the employees of the instant hospital. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 000 for global income tax for the year 2013 to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office.

C. On February 11, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the actual business operator of the instant hospital, the Plaintiff filed a request to the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office for rectification of wage and salary income tax (original tax) and business income tax (original tax) reported as described in the foregoing paragraph (b). On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request to rectify the global income tax reported with the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office for rectification as described in the foregoing paragraph (b).

D. On July 30, 2015, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the filing of a request for correction of the global income tax on the above global income tax on July 30, 2015, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant Gangnamnam District Tax Office rejected a request for correction of the above earned income tax (original tax) and the business income tax (original tax) on August 27, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "first disposition of this case"), and the "the second disposition of this case to reject a correction of the global income tax on the global income tax and the business income tax by the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant Youngnam District Tax Office", and the "the second disposition of this case" by the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the tax office on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appealed dismissed the plaintiff's request for adjudication on December 10, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6, 9, 17, Gap evidence 18-1 through 7, Gap evidence 19, 20, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s salary position employed by KimA, only lent the name of the establishment and operation of the instant hospital to KimA, and the actual operator of the instant hospital is KimA. As such, the part of the instant disposition No. 1, which exceeded the tax amount on the income that the Plaintiff should actually accrue, is unlawful, and all of the instant disposition No. 2 is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

A: KimA, Eul: Plaintiff and Dental: The instant hospital

Article 1 (Investment of B and Obligations of Party A thereto)

Paragraph B(1) shall invest KRW 200 million on July 9, 2013 for the smooth operation of this Agreement and at the same time obtain the status of a financial investor and a partner with respect to the operation of this Agreement.

§ 2. (Right to Profit Distribution for Investment in Section B)

Paragraph 1 A shall pay the dividends of KRW 3.5 million per KRW 100,000 per 100,000 to the amount invested on July 9, 2013 by Eul on the last day of each month in a condition that no tax is imposed on any pretext.

Article 3 (Duties of Gap and Eul for Operation of Dentals under this Agreement)

The establishment of dental dental services under paragraph (1) shall be registered in the tax office, public health center, public health center, the Corporation, and the central library, etc. with documents in the name of B.

In the event that paragraph 2(b) is no longer available for the operation of this Agreement due to the circumstances described in Section 2(A, it used the name of B for the operation of this Agreement, such as medical machinery, materials, and building rental deposit, but the assets related to this Agreement prepared for the account of A are owned by A without any objection.

Paragraph 3, even if the term of the lease contract for the assets related to the operation of this contract expires by using the name of B during the effective period of the contract under the name of B, and the assets are acquired under the name of B, the real ownership is owned by A. In addition, even after the termination of this contract, even if the term of the lease contract for the assets related to the operation of this contract is not terminated, B shall transfer the status of the lessee of this contract to A without any condition.

Pursuant to Paragraph 4, the sales management, including the insurance and medical care benefits, and all financial affairs arising from the operation of this contract dental services under the name of Section 4 are the duties of Party A and the responsibility of Party B. In particular, Party A shall be liable for obligations owed to the State, such as taxes and public charges arising from the operation of this contract dental services, with the good faith and trust so as not to incur any legal and monetary burden. As a part of such liability, Party A shall open a regular installment savings in the name of Party B and deposit cash amounting to KRW 00,000 per month for the payment of global income tax that may arise from the obligations under the name of Party B each year, and Party B shall use the regular installment

The important decision-making of this contract operated under the name of Section 5 (B) shall be discussed with Section 5, and the final authority on the decision shall be over Section 1, and the responsibility shall also be over Section 5.

§ 4. (Remuneration for Operation of Dentals under this Agreement)

Paragraph 1 (1) A shall pay KRW 13 million per month to the account or cash designated by B while opening this contract using the name of B and maintaining the validity of this contract in return for performing the duties as the president: Provided, That during the period corresponding to three months from June 12, 2013 to September 11, 2013, “B” shall be paid KRW 10 million per month from “B”. This is a voluntary decision made by “B” as it expresses the authenticity of the operation of this contract.

Section 2. The right to profit dividends under Article 2 of this Agreement and the remuneration under Article 3 are claims arising out of individual and independent grounds.

When paragraph (3) A pays the amount referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article to Section 3, A shall be treated by Party A so that tax does not accrue to B, and the name thereof shall be freely determined pursuant to paragraph (4) of Article 3 at the time of the settlement of accounts.

Article 5 (Term of Contract)

In principle, the contract term of this contract under paragraph (1) shall be two years from the initial date of June 12, 2013.

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, Gap and Eul may reduce or extend the contract period upon agreement between the parties (hereinafter referred to as "the contract period").

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The main contents of the “Agreement on Equity Investment and Joint Operation Agreements signed between the Plaintiff and KimA on July 8, 2013 are as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).

shall be liable in good faith so as not to cause any legal and financial burden. Such liability shall be

As part of this Act, A shall have the name of B for the payment of global income tax to be incurred by obligations in the name of B each year.

The installment savings shall be opened and the cash amounting to KRW 00,000 per month shall be deposited, and Eul shall pay the installment savings periodically.

all income tax shall be used only for the purpose of payment.

Section 5 (B) for the important decision-making of this Agreement under the name of Section 5 (B), Eul shall discuss with Section 5

and the final authority on the decision is against Party A, and the responsibility is also against Party A.

§ 4. (Remuneration for Operation of Dentals under this Agreement)

Paragraph 1 (1) A shall establish dental services under this Agreement using the name of B, and shall perform duties as a director.

10,000 won per month during the period of maintaining the validity of this contract in return for

payment in cash or in cash: Provided, That the period equivalent to three months from June 12, 2013 to September 11, 2013 shall be the same.

Within this period, Eul shall be entitled to KRW 10 million per month from Gap. This shall not apply to the operation of Eul's dental services.

The expression of authenticity is made by the voluntary decision of this state.

Section 2. The right to profit dividends under Section 2 of this Agreement and the remuneration under Section 3 are individual and independent.

is the claim arising.

Paragraph 3, A does not generate taxes to B when it pays the amount under Paragraph 1 of this Article to B.

Records shall be handled by Gap, and the name thereof shall be freely determined pursuant to Article 3 (4) at the time of the settlement of accounts.

Article 5 (Term of Contract)

In principle, the contract term of this contract under paragraph (1) shall be two years from the initial date of June 12, 2013.

Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this section, A and B shall terminate the contract period upon agreement between the parties;

. Reduction or extension (hereinafter referred to as the “establishment”).

2) The amount of the Plaintiff’s wage income and interest income deposited in the name of the instant hospital and o dental clinic from the bank account (Account Number 000) and the bank account (Account Number 000) in the name of the Plaintiff is as follows.

According to the contents of the instant agreement and the “amount received”, the total amount of benefits received by the Plaintiff in return for his/her service at the instant hospital from June 12, 2013 to December 24, 2013 is KRW 79 million [ = KRW 30 million from June 12, 2013 to September 11, 2013 x 30 million from September 12, 2013 x 39 million from September 12, 2013 to December 11, 2013 x KRW 39 million from September 12, 2013 to December 5, 2013 x KRW 30 million from December 25, 200 to December 300 from December 24, 2013 x KRW 500,000 from December 12, 200 to December 25, 200].

[On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's wage income is KRW 30 million for three months each month from June 2013 to August 201, and KRW 13 million each month from September 2013 to December 8, 2000. However, although the period of actual service of the plaintiff remains 6 months from June 12, 2013 to December 24, 2013, the defendant's allegation that the amount of interest income is KRW 30 million for the first time from July 17, 2013 to December 17, 2000, the defendant's claim that the above amount of interest income was paid KRW 700,000,000 for the first time after December 17, 2013 to KRW 700,000,000,000 for each of the above 300,000 won.

3) On October 24, 2012, KimA filed a trademark application for “the Department of ○○○○○○○○”, which is the trade name of the instant hospital, and registered in the Trademark Gazette.

○ requested the Plaintiff to work as a page, and the name or loan was requested, and accordingly, the Plaintiff lent the name of the instant hospital to the Plaintiff and the actual operation of the instant hospital was conducted.

○ ○ Doo and the instant hospital were operated at the same time, and the employees of the two hospitals were 60 to 70 persons, respectively, divided into two hospitals into business registration, but the same was the same as one hospital in fact.

○ On May 6, 2013, the instant hospital was operated by lending the name of the NamA to operate the instant hospital, and thereafter, the instant hospital was operated by lending the Plaintiff’s name.

20 million won received from the plaintiff is not received as investment money, but borrowed as security for hospital lease deposit.

○ On December 22, 2013, without consultation with the Plaintiff, removed the signboards of the instant hospital without consultation with the Plaintiff, and removed medical equipment, etc. in the location and moved to another place.

○ Of the sales of the instant hospital, there was a fact that KRW 000 has been transferred to the Oo and account registered as a business operator under his own name. Since November 2013, all the sales of the instant hospital was deposited into the passbook.

4) On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the act that KimA had the Plaintiff impose taxes on the instant hospital and public charges of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Plaintiff, which constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) or a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by acquiring the property benefits through the act of breach of trust. However, KimA stated in the investigative agency that the actual business operator of the instant hospital was the principal, and based on the statement, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office issued a disposition that KimA did not have suspicion (defluence of evidence) on the suspected facts of the instant crime.

4) On July 17, 2015, KimA appeared in the Youngbu Tax Office and thought that it was the first name in relation to the operation of the instant hospital. However, after sending the certificate of contents on November 4, 2013, KimA stated to the effect that the Plaintiff is a joint business proprietor after exercising the actual management right. Meanwhile, KimA stated to the effect that at the time, the lease agreement on medical equipment in the instant hospital was concluded in its name, and that even if operating the instant hospital, the agreement was made to pay monthly wages to the Plaintiff.

5) On September 17, 2015, KimA made the following statements at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office under investigation into the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

【Crime of Fraud”

At the time of June 2013, the Defendant was liable for financial institutions of approximately KRW 50,60 million, and the Defendant’s bank deposit claims and credit card sales claims were provisionally attached with respect to KRW 310,000,000,000,000, and the Defendant’s claim for the return of the deposit for lease was provisionally attached with respect to KRW 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around June 26, 2013, paid the balance of the paid-in benefits and the security deposits, etc. to the victim Scene (Plaintiff) in the Yadong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with no money, at a more than KRW 200 million loan. On the expiration of this period, money problem is resolved as to whether the sales are possible at the time of crypt. In that case, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 200 million should be made by means of text messages around July 2, 2013. As dental sales are rapidly increasing, the Defendant would pay KRW 70 million in this week, and KRW 100,000 in the next week, KRW 50,000 in interest of KRW 10,000 in the next week, and KRW 28,000 in the name of the victim and KRW 380,000 in the name of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim as such and received KRW 200 million from the victim as the borrowed money.

6) On June 23, 2016, KimA was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the following criminal facts by the Seoul Central District Court (2015Da5158, 6620) and appealed and is currently in the appellate trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 10, 11, 22, 24, 29, and Eul evidence No. 9

The purpose of the whole theory

D. Determination

1) Whether the actual entrepreneur of the instant hospital is the Plaintiff

A) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “if the ownership 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 liable to pay taxes.” Therefore, if there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages the taxation subject to income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner on the basis of form or appearance shall not be the nominal owner, but the person who substantially controls and manages the taxation subject to taxation pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person to whom it actually belongs. In addition, the determination of whether it falls under such a case shall be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the process of using the nominal owner and content of the agreement, the degree and scope of involvement of the nominal owner, internal responsibility and calculation relationship

On the other hand, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence and the tax base of the tax requirement. This also applies to the case where the tax authority contests that the nominal partner of the transaction, etc. is different from the nominal partner, barring any special circumstances, such as a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, as long as the tax authority imposed tax on the nominal trader by deeming the nominal trader as the nominal trader, it is necessary for the nominal trader to assert and prove that the nominal partner of the transaction, etc. is different from the nominal one. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge has a reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the tax requirement. As a result, it is unclear whether the substance of the transaction, etc. belongs to the nominal person, and if it becomes impossible to obtain conviction of the judge, then the disadvantage therefrom is back to the tax authority bearing the ultimate burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9935, May 16, 2014).

B) Based on the above legal principles, in light of all the circumstances such as the details of use in the name of the Plaintiff in the operation of the instant hospital, the detailed contents of the instant agreement, the degree of involvement in the operation of the KimA and the Plaintiff’s hospital, and the internal responsibility and accounting relationship between the KimA and the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the business operator who actually operated the instant hospital is KimA, and the Plaintiff was merely a person who lent his name to KimA regarding the operation of the instant hospital. However, at the same time, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff provided labor and received wages at the instant hospital, and that he was paid KRW 20 million interest every month after lending KimA to the Plaintiff. It is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is the actual business operator of the instant hospital, and on a different premise, the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount out of the instant Disposition No. 1, which was issued by the head of Gangnam Tax Office by the Defendant, etc., and the disposition of this case was unlawful and unlawful.

2) Scope of revocation of the first disposition of this case

A) Whether interest income constitutes subject to taxation

The plaintiff asserts that since the principal amount of KRW 200 million lent to KimA is not recoverable, interest income of KRW 35 million cannot be subject to taxation.

If the amount of interest income collected during the taxable year prior to the occurrence of a cause not to recover the principal and interest income accrued prior to the final return on the tax base of the interest income accruing from a non-business loan or prior to the determination or correction of the tax base and tax amount, and the amount of interest income collected during the taxable year prior to the occurrence of such cause is below the principal, such income cannot be subject to taxation of the interest income tax, and whether all or part of the interest income accrued shall not be determined at the time of receiving the interest, but at the time of the final return on the tax base or the tax base and tax amount, and the determination of the cause not to recover shall be made at the time of determination or correction of the tax base and tax amount. Determination of the cause not to recover shall be made objectively in accordance with ordinary social norms, comprehensively taking into account the specific details of transactions, the circumstances

On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200 million to KimA on or before July 9, 2013, and received a total of KRW 35 million interest from August 9, 2013 to December 25, 2013, and KimA was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years for a criminal fact that the Plaintiff acquired the above KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff without any intent or ability to repay in the Seoul Central District Court on June 23, 2016, and is currently pending in the appellate trial. The fact that the Plaintiff was unable to receive interest from KimA on or after December 25, 2013 is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as seen earlier.

However, even if KimA was prosecuted for the crime that he acquired KRW 200 million from the plaintiff and was found guilty in the first instance trial, and even if the remaining interest and the loan principal are not recovered from the interest other than the interest for five months until the date of the closure of the pleadings of this case where a considerable period of time has elapsed from the date of the loan, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the loan principal claim is impossible, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, interest income of KRW 35 million that the plaintiff actually received shall be subject to taxation, and such income shall be subject to taxation,

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

B)the amount of the legitimate tax amount;

The facts that the Plaintiff’s earned income of KRW 41,826,638, which is unrelated to the instant hospital, was included in the tax base for global income tax for the year 2013, which was imposed upon the instant Disposition No. 1, are not disputed between the parties. As seen earlier, the aggregate of KRW 79,00,000,000 for the instant hospital’s benefits, as earned income, shall be included in the tax base for global income tax for the year 2013, respectively. Accordingly, the global income tax for the Plaintiff calculated pursuant to the disposition No. 1, for the year 2013

It is 24,841,540 won, such as the details.

Therefore, the portion exceeding 24,841,540 won in the first disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Gangnam District Tax Office is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Young-gu Tax Office is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.