Cho High Court Decision 201J 0502 ( October 30, 2011)

The plaintiff is not an actual business owner but a nominal lender.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s punishment has been continuously engaged in the business of printing name cards at the instant place of business, the Plaintiff’s punishment appears to have been lent to the Plaintiff due to bad credit standing, and the Plaintiff appears to have received benefits from punishment, the Plaintiff is not the actual business owner of the instant place of business, but the name lender.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

United StatesA

Head of the High Tax Office

March 20, 2012

April 3, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 on July 7, 2010 and KRW 000 on the second half of 2004 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business registration holder of a place of business that runs the business of printing name cards (hereinafter referred to as the “place of business of this case”) under the trade name of from April 21, 2000 to September 14, 2004, "OOOdong-dong 00 to BBB" in Goyang-si, Busan-dong.

B. Based on the taxation data notified by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the Defendant decided on July 7, 2010 that: (a) the Plaintiff purchased or omitted total of KRW 000 in CCCP&P; and (b) omitted sales amount of KRW 000 in 2007; and (c) on July 7, 2010 for the Plaintiff, value-added tax amounting to KRW 100 in 2004; (b) KRW 2000 in 200 in 205; and (c) KRW 1 in 2005 in 200 in 200 in 2005; and KRW 1 in 2006 in 200 in 206; and KRW 1 in 2007 in 200 in 207; and (d) and KRW 200 in 207 in 207 in 207 (hereinafter referred to as “ initial disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 19, 201 through an objection on September 8, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal decided that on June 30, 201, the Plaintiff would rectify the relevant taxable period and tax amount by subtracting sales equivalent to the purchase amount from September 15, 2004 to December 31, 207, for a period other than the business registration period under the Plaintiff’s name.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant, on August 10, 201, reduced the initial imposition disposition from KRW 000 in 2004, and KRW 000 in 200 in value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-1 to 8, Eul evidence 3-1 to 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is an employer is illegal, because the plaintiff only lent the name of the business operator to Jeon GG, and worked as an employee in the workplace of this case, and is not the actual business owner in the workplace of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff and Jeon GG have registered the business of name-printed printing business under the trade name of BB or Printing as follows:

(A) The plaintiff

(b) JeonG;

(2) The confirmation of the lease of the instant workplace (Evidence A No. 8) states that, from February 30, 2003 to February 31, 2005, Hah, a lessor, confirmed that the lessee of the instant workplace is formerGG, and the lessee is formerG and the rental period is from March 28, 2005 to March 28, 2007, respectively.

(3) The telephone subscriber history (Evidence A No. 10) at the instant workplace stated that allGG had opened the phone call at the instant workplace on October 8, 1998, and terminated on September 14, 2010.

(4) During the period of operation of BB, “G” was unable to make a business registration and account because it was a bad credit holder. Accordingly, from April 200 to September 2004, the former GG’s confirmation (Evidence A No. 4) used its business from around April 200 to around September 2004. During that period, the former GG’s business was closed at around September 2004 and operated its business again in its name until September 2010. During that period, the actual operation of the business was made by the principal and the profits from the purchase of the loan was made by the Plaintiff only on a regular basis with the loan extended to each employee and the Plaintiff’s new loan extended to 250,000 won.

(5) The Plaintiff’s deposit transaction statement (Evidence A) states that the amount between KRW 00 won per month during the period from February 4, 2003 to December 26, 2007 on the Plaintiff’s deposit account is deposited under the Plaintiff’s name, JJ (CG’s wife) or the instant place of business for the benefit of KRW 00 per month.

(6) The written decision of the Tax Tribunal (Evidence A) cited the following as: (a) the payment for the purchase amount of the dispute (CCCP&P of the Co., Ltd.; (b) the settlement amount was transferred from the account of the Claimant JJ (C) which is the form of the Plaintiff’s punishment; and (c) the previousG, which had been engaged in advertising and printing business in the name of the Claimant around September 2004, where the business operator was closed in the name of the Claimant and confirmed the fact that the Claimant had registered the business again in its name.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap and 4 through 10, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which were revealed in the facts recognized in the future, and in light of the lease contract, telephone subscribers, and the formerG's confirmation document, the formerG appears to have been continuously engaged in the business of this case at the workplace of this case around 1998. The plaintiff asserts that the formerG has leased its name with bad credit standing during the plaintiff's business registration period, and that this corresponds to the formerG's confirmation document, loan implementation confirmation document, and the plaintiff's business operator's business registration period from February 4, 2003 to December 26, 2007. The tax Tribunal did not consider that the actual operator of the workplace of this case was merely the former operator of the business of this case, and that the actual business of this case was not the owner of the business of this case, but the actual business of this case was the owner of the business of this case for the period from February 4, 2003 to December 26, 207.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, it is decided to accept it, and it is decided as per Disposition.