Whether a person is an actual business operator

It is difficult to deem the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff that it is not an actual business operator.

Article 14 of the 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 KRW 9,359,890 on December 5, 2005 against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the business as the representative of ○○ Ma-gu ○○○○-dong 000-00, whose main business is the manufacturing business of geographical and precision parts processing, etc.

B. On December 5, 2005, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to rectify and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 9,359,89,890 of global income tax for the year 2002, on the ground that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 39,30,000 in total from an enterprise “○ex” without a real transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) A captain;

The Plaintiff, around July 2001, lent only the name of business registration to Kim ○, an employer, an employer, and a person who actually operated ○○ Government, is Kim ○, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful in violation of the substance over form principle.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [Real Taxation]

(1) If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and a person to whom such ownership belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom such person actually belongs as a taxpayer.

C. Determination

According to the principle of substantial taxation, if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer. However, in applying the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the fact that the ownership of the transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and that there is another person to whom the transaction actually belongs.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5, 7-1, 2, 7-9, 6, 11-1, 12, and 19, the plaintiff was working as an employee in charge of production in ○○○○ Co., Ltd. during the period from around 1995 to June 30, 2001. From around August 2003 to July 2004, the plaintiff was working as an employee in charge of production in ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the plaintiff was working for ○○○○○○○○ Co.,, Ltd., Ltd. as an employee in charge of production. From July 2001 to July 2003, the period of working for ○○○○○○○○’s Co., Ltd., Ltd., and was working for ○○○○’s production business during the period of working for ○○○○’s 2, etc.

However, in this case, ○○○○, a related case, appeared as a witness in this court 2006Guhap1525, and testified. The Plaintiff retired from ○○○ Co., Ltd. on June 30, 2001, and was assigned with his automobile and machinery owned by the above company as retirement allowance group. The Plaintiff used it to independently operate the business and established ○○○ Government Corporation. However, as the witness was requested to help the ○○○○○ Party to leave ○○ Government Accounting, Accounting, etc., and some of the witness operated the business. During that process, the Plaintiff was able to do so, while the witness appeared in ○○○ Government Accounting, and ○○○○○ Government Accounting, etc., the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff monthly living allowance as the fund of ○○ Government Corporation 20,000, and the Plaintiff was also recognized as having received a tax invoice, and the Plaintiff returned the ○○○ Party’s testimony from 200,000 witness to 20,00.

According to the above facts of recognition, even if there are circumstances as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Kim ○ was an actual business operator of the ○○ Government, or that the business income or profits of the ○ Government was entirely reverted to Kim ○○○, whereas it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff was not an employee, and that it does not change solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 13 through 18.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.