early 209Gu2643 (Law No. 916, 2009)

It is legitimate to impose tax on the husband who actually operated the place of business under the name of the denial.

The Plaintiff’s signature in the account book and transaction book registered in the name of the spouse, and the court was sentenced to a fine for the violation of the Labor Standards Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was the actual operator, and the employee and the business partner confirmed that the Plaintiff was the actual operator, and thus, the taxation is legitimate.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2004 against the Plaintiff on 2009.06 is revoked in all of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 18,916,100, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2005, value-added tax for 4,964,800, value-added tax for the second term portion of 205, value-added tax for the second term portion of 2005, value-added tax for 4,964,800, value-added tax for the first term portion of 206, value-added tax for 48,310

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On 1, 2004, on 07.01.01, 2007.01, the Plaintiff’s wife was registered as a △○○○-ri, 100 business.

B. On February 6, 2009, the Defendant recognized the business operator who actually operated △ chemical as the Plaintiff and imposed the value-added tax as stated in the claim(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's principal

The plaintiff operated △ chemical after around 26, 2006, and up to that time, △B, who is the plaintiff's punishment, operated △ chemical, and the plaintiff worked as the vice president. Thus, each disposition of this case is unlawful since it was taken against a person who is not the actual business operator.

B. Determination

The following facts and circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s plastic criminal delivery factory operated by the head of YB around August 2004, 204 due to the Plaintiff’s business registration under the Plaintiff’s name of MaapA and carried on the same business. From around July 01, 2004, the Plaintiff, who had worked as the vice president, had been in actual involvement in the operation of △△ chemical since the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy. △△△△△ was in actual position after the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy, and △△△△△ was in actual position in the business of △△△△△, which was in the Plaintiff’s financial transaction book or trading book after August 204, 204, which was in fact signed by the Plaintiff, and was in violation of this Act, for the reason that the Plaintiff was in violation of the Labor Standards Act (the Plaintiff’s actual duty of △△△△△△△△△△△△, a witness of △△△△, an employee of 205.

In addition, as long as the Plaintiff is recognized as a joint business owner of △chemical, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the headB to pay a national tax related to △ chemical. In such a case, the Plaintiff is deemed as not liable for tax payment, and even if the tax disposition is imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du2222, Jul. 13, 199).

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

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.