early 201J 3536 ( November 25, 2011)

Since the name lending intention is a worker, the actual business doctor must bear the obligation to withhold earned income tax.

In light of the circumstances at the time of opening the Seoul Hospital and registering the business registration of the Namyang-ju Hospital in the name of another doctor, the confirmation document submitted at the time of investigation and the statement of the nominal lending doctor, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have been in the actual management of the Namyang-ju Hospital and the status of the nominal lending doctor’s worker. Therefore, the Plaintiff

2012Guhap640 and revocation of detailed employment income and revocation thereof

The two AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

July 10, 2012

August 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 on the Plaintiff on September 1, 201, the wage income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2006, the wage income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007, the wage income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2008, the wage income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009, and the wage income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 1996, the Plaintiff filed a report on the closure of the Namyangju BB with the opening of the “BB” from 000 OOdong 00, Namyang-si, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul BB”) around 1996, and filed a report on the closure of the operation of the “BB” from 000, Gangdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “OOBB”). The South Yangyangju BB was registered in the name of the formerCCC that had worked as an employment doctor on 2005.

B. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, a withholding agent, for the wage and salary income earned in the Namyang BB, that is the Plaintiff, the formerCC was merely a wage and salary income earner. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to rectify and notify the Plaintiff, who was the withholding agent, of the wage and salary income tax for the year 2006, the wage and salary income tax for the year 2007, the wage and salary income tax for the year 2008, and the wage and salary tax for the year 2009, and the wage and salary tax for the year 2000 (additional tax for unfaithful payment of withholding tax) for the wage and salary income for the year 2010 (the Plaintiff was imposed a global income tax separately on August 10, 2011).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff closed the Namyang Jeju BB and did not perform medical practice at the above hospital, the Plaintiff did not establish a medical institution in violation of Article 33(8) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply). Even if the Plaintiff was established as a medical institution in violation of the former Medical Service Act, Article 33(8) of the former Medical Service Act, and Article 11 and Article 15 of the Constitution, etc.

Since it is against the unconstitutional law, it can not be the basis for the disposition in this case.

2) The Plaintiff did not operate the Namyang Jeju BB by lending his name. The formerCC, while performing medical treatment, was practically engaged in employment, revenue and expenditure, etc., and practically operated the Namyang BB. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a withholding obligation for the labor income of the formerCCC.

3) During the period in which the Namyang-ju BB is operated under the name of the formerCC, both Seoul BB and the Namyang-ju BB have fulfilled their obligation to report and pay income tax and other tax, and did not underreporting. Even if the Plaintiff neglected to report, the Plaintiff is in a situation where it is difficult to avoid operating the Namyang BB, which falls under the central hospital in the region, and thus, there is a justifiable reason for not being negligent in neglecting the obligation to report.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether a violation of the former Medical Service Act is the issue of the instant case

The purpose of Article 33(8) of the former Medical Service Act, which limits the number of medical institutions to one doctor, is to prevent those who are not doctors from being managed by a medical institution at the stage of its establishment by allowing the establishment of a medical institution only to the extent at which the doctor can directly perform medical practice. Therefore, the fact that a doctor who establishes a medical institution under his own name directly employs another medical institution under another’s name and pays wages to its employees, and takes profits from the business cannot be deemed as having established a separate medical institution under the former Medical Service Act by borrowing another’s license. However, even if a medical institution under another’s name was established with a doctor to directly perform medical practice, the above doctor who already established a new medical institution under one’s own name constitutes a case where the Plaintiff violated the former Medical Service Act (see Supreme Court Decision 203Do256, Oct. 23, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2003Do256, Oct. 23, 2003).

2) Whether the Plaintiff substantially managed the Namyang Jeju BB

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to impose a tax burden on a person who actually reverts, not a formal nominal person of income. As such, income attribution should be determined not by formal business name, legal relations, but by the relationship of attribution of profits arising from actual business activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2165, Apr. 9, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the overall purport of oral argument as to this case, and (i) the former V was the former BBBB representative on June 22, 201, but did not appear to have been paid only by the Plaintiff, and (ii) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been in the name of the Seoul Central Tax Service to have been established in the name of the Seoul Central Tax Service, and (iii) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been in the name of the Seoul Central Tax Service to have been in the name of the former CCC’s previous business registration confirmation document and the content of the formerCC’s previous business registration document and its previous business registration document.

3) Whether the imposition of additional tax is lawful

A) Whether the Plaintiff neglected to report income tax

Article 24 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the total amount of income of a resident (including the total amount of pay and the total amount of pension; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be the sum of the amounts imported or imported in the relevant taxable period, and Article 14 (2) of the same Act provides that "the tax base of global income shall be the amount calculated by applying the deductions under Articles 50, 51, 51-2 through 51-4 and 52 from the total amount of the income. In other words, the Income Tax Act adopts the principle of personal taxation to the total amount of the resident and the total amount of the income of the resident is the basis for calculating the tax base, and it is reasonable to view that the income reported in the name of another person has no effect as the income tax return of the taxpayer even if all the separate income and the reported income are reported, even if all the remaining income were not reported through the foregoing legal principles.

B) Whether justifiable grounds exist

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, a taxpayer’s intentional and negligent act is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the law when the taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting, and tax payment, without any justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004). It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff neglected to report due cause solely on the ground that the Plaintiff could not escape from its duty to report on the remaining State BB, which falls under the central hospital in the region, due to the fact that (i) the income accrued from the South Korea, as the real manager, is the income of the Plaintiff, and (ii) the formerCC seems to have been aware that the Plaintiff was in the position of its employee, and (iii) the income of the South Korea, BB and Seoul, and there is a possibility of change in the applicable tax rate depending on the size of income if the return was separately filed.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's arguments are without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.