Cheongju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-1385 ( April 21, 2015)

Whether the name of the shareholder was stolen or whether the shareholder is the actual shareholder of the non-party company

(1) It is insufficient to recognize that the name of the shareholder was stolen or that the name was not the real shareholder of the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to prove that there is no gross income or sales belonging to the account for the pertinent business year, which was not properly included in the account recorded by the tax authority.

Secondary tax liability of investors under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu1054. Revocation of the designation of the secondary taxpayer

The plaintiff who is a person in the name of the borrowed account shall be entitled to receive money from the borrowed account and shall not be entitled to receive money from the borrowed account.

(B) The prosecutor made a statement to the effect that he did not report the sales and issue the tax invoice (However, the BB made a partial sales from 202 to 2007 out of the amount deposited in the name account of this case.

(2) The non-party company recognized the omission (total amount of KRW 2.47 billion), unlike the case of a corporate account

It did not keep a proper basis for accounting on the details of the deposit of the instant borrowed account.

The content is not properly included in the account book, and ③ BB itself is the wife and Nonparty.

The name of the instant borrowed account in the name of the Plaintiff, the vice president of the company, and friendly CCC, exceeds 10 years;

(4) The review decision of the Tax Tribunal by the Tax Tribunal

정에 따라 ##지방국세청은 이 사건 차명계좌의 총 입금액(11,072,863,096원) 전부를

The transfer between the corporate account of the non-party company and the borrowed name account of this case without regard to the omission of sales

Exclusion from Amount of money, analyzing the amount of money deposited in the name account of this case and the tax invoice by customer;

through confirmation, etc. of the final transaction office that received the sales tax invoice of the corporation,

The amount of 2,765,642,422 won (the amount of reduction by omission in sales by 20 enterprises) shall be reduced from the total amount of the borrowed account.

1,066,223,425, processed sales 874,694,260, normal declaration, and non-issuance of tax invoices.

8,307,220,674 won, which has been reduced by 810,252,737 won, was judged as an omission in sales, 5.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant may be deemed to have proved the existence of the omission in sales, which is not properly included in the account books of the non-party company, through the existence of the instant borrowed account, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) reduced the corporate tax amount of KRW 1,28,457,420; and (c) the value-added tax amount of KRW 496,153,009; and (b) the notified tax amount of change in income amount of KRW 1,938,77

Therefore, the degree of difficulty in the proof and the principle of equity between the parties is reduced in sales.

In addition to the detailed reality in which the use of the borrowed account is frequent for the purpose of tax evasion, this shall not apply

Of the money deposited in a borrowed account, the remainder remaining after the Defendant’s reduction as above shall be the sales of the non-party company

It can be presumed that the plaintiff's omission in the sale constitutes a price. As to this, the plaintiff's omission in the sale

I have to prove that it is nothing more.

B) Meanwhile, the record of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was based on the duly examined evidence as seen earlier.

(1) The amount deposited to the corporate account of the non-party company in 2002 is 429,867,404 won in total, and the amount deposited to the borrowed account is 283,536,250 won in total. The non-party company issued a tax invoice of 941,28,905 won in total in 2002 and filed a tax invoice of 2002; the amount deposited to the non-party company's corporate account in 2003,971,114 won in total; the amount deposited to the non-party company's corporate account in 2003,500 won in total; the amount deposited to the non-party company's corporate account in 207,14,104,204,207,3010 won in total; the amount deposited to the non-party company's corporate account in 207,307,14,204,439,139,147,107,47,207

C) However, the above-mentioned facts and the evidence presented at the court of the first instance as well as the above evidence

full view of the following circumstances, which are found to have added the entire purport of the pleading, the

J. Of the amounts deposited into the instant borrowed account, the remaining part of the amount that the Defendant reduced as above shall be left to each other.

It is difficult to find that the omission amount was not the omission amount. Ultimately, it is difficult to find the non-party company of this case

The non-party corporation that did not report a substantial portion of the money deposited in the borrowed account,

The part of each disposition against the Party is legitimate in 2002, 2003, and 2007.

① The above BB and the Plaintiff’s statement, Nonparty Company’s trade structure, transaction counterpart, etc.

In light of the circumstances known to the Nonparty Company, in cash as well as the use of the instant borrowed name account;

It appears that there was a significant probability that part of the transaction was made, and furthermore, it is out of the borrowed name account of this case.

It is difficult to readily conclude that there is no possibility that the account of the third party has been used. The instant borrowed name system

The amount of money deposited in cash for each account reaches KRW 4,789,068,212, and among them, the principal transaction of the non-party company shall be made.

D Bank EE branch (Transaction Code 0000, No. 45) of D Bank EE branch (Transaction Code 0000, No. 45)

The money is confirmed to be KRW 4,488,772,795, which is paid in cash by the non-party company.

There is a circumstance to suspect that the amount received is equivalent to the amount received.

2. Moreover, even if the BB itself, part of the sales from the prosecution from 2002 to 2007

In view of the fact that the sales of the non-party company are recognized as approximately KRW 2.476 billion, the sales of the non-party company

In determining omission, the 'small and medium enterprise' in the business year concerned shall issue a tax invoice.

On the other hand, it is difficult to find any reasonable ground in the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no omission of sales solely on the ground that the “amount reported for sales” is more than the aggregate of the instant borrowed account opened and the “amount deposited in the corporate account of the company other than the lawsuit.” Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should divide the previous and latter parts of the year 2008 to determine whether the amount was omitted in sales of the company other than the non-party company. However, there is no ground to understand it.

③ Rather, the forms and characteristics of Nonparty Company’s trade and type of business, and the use and use of the instant borrowed account.

Term of Use, the developments leading up to the deposits into the instant borrowed account, the developments leading up to the F General Company, and the GG Industry

In light of the foregoing, the Non-Party Company reported the sale of all the money deposited in the instant borrowed account.

the Plaintiff’s share that there was no omission in the output tax amount, although a false tax invoice was issued;

The head of the Gu is very unusual and must prove the special circumstances related thereto.

The original market department and objective data to support the above argument have not been submitted.

4. BB denied the omission of sale in the party’s personal examination of the case involved;

When the account of this case, other than the account of the principal, has been used, the account of this case shall be regularly paid.

득할 만한 설명을 하지 못한 반면(갑 제122호증 제11, 12면), ##지방국세청 및 검찰

The non-party company used the instant borrowed account and omitted the sales report.

“The sales proceeds received from the instant borrowed account shall be the raw materials without tax invoices from the secondhand goods, etc.

In the process of manufacturing products using the above raw materials, natural reduction has been made (so far)

F. â………………………………………â…………â………â……â………………ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

The Kenya has been supplied to the Kenya, and the other company contains a large amount of crating agents on the raw materials of the Korea-U.S.C.

(1) A product manufactured by mixing the waste board purchased in cash with the raw materials of the Han LAFC

v. Daehan purchase without material. Loss and raw material purchase equivalent to the portion of the present order of purchase

natural, “A person who used the proceeds deposited in the account and did not report its partial sales”;

It has made persuasive statements.

⑤ As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Nonparty Company supplied goods to the Nonparty Company for a long time.

has maintained the type of transaction in which payment has been received from Dazas to the instant borrowed account; and

In relation to the non-party corporation, there is any benefit to the non-party corporation in addition to tax evasion by omitting sales.

In other words, it is doubtful whether BB is a party's personal examination result in the case related to BB.

with knowledge of the existence of both the non-party company or all the final buyers which issued the tax invoice.

Since there is a hardener (No. 122 of the A, No. 24 of the A, etc.) involved in the middle of transaction to mediate it.

It is difficult to find out any particular reason to incur unnecessary costs, such as fees, rather than final

From the standpoint of the purchasing office, the non-party is more small than zero in consideration of the return of defects in the product.

In addition, the current status of other types of business seems to have been examined.

Even if it is not easy to discover the transaction in the form of the plaintiff's assertion.

6. The Plaintiff’s objective transaction with the substance of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s transaction with the Plaintiff.

Data(the essential measurements, measurements, in the light of the characteristics of the types of waste resources requiring the contract, measurement procedures;

(2) The non-party company has failed to submit a certificate, etc. and only after the fact that the non-party company

The details of the deposit in the name of the instant borrowed account are found. Furthermore, the details of the deposit in the name of the instant borrowed account are found.

It is difficult to use the name of the car in the name account, and it is not highly possible that the carer used the name again in the name account.

On the other hand, the final transaction places of sales tax invoices issued by the non-party company are asserted by the plaintiff.

The form of transactions is denied.

7. BB and the non-party company shall not be prosecuted by the prosecution against the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

A. (Evidence No. 70) The prosecutor accepted the fact that the non-party company received the price of the goods in the name account of this case, but only reported at least KRW 9 billion out of the amount deposited in the name account of the non-party company and the amount deposited in the corporate account of this case. In light of the fact that the non-party company received the price of the goods through the name account of this case, it is difficult to view that the non-party company evaded the tax by omitting the sales solely on the ground that the non-party company received the price of the goods through the name account of this case.

The reasons are as follows. However, the prosecution's disposition of non-prosecution and the burden of proof in the lawsuit of this case is justified.

It is different from others. Above all, the reason for the disposition not to institute the above non-prosecution disposition is about 9 billion won out of the amount deposited in the borrowed account.

It is difficult to find any objective evidence on the fact that the report was filed by the Board.

The sole reason cited by the division is that the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case is deemed to have fulfilled the burden of proof.

It is difficult to do so.

2) Parts concerning the omission of sales in 204, 2005, and 2006

(A) ① Amount deposited in the corporate account of the non-party company in 2004 is KRW 1,265,353,919 in total.

J. The amount deposited to the instant borrowed account is KRW 868,288,923 in total, and the non-party company is the total amount.

The fact that 1,803,051,075 won was issued and reported sales in 2004. ② The amount deposited in the corporate account of the non-party company in 2005 is 1,308,414,123 won in total. The non-party company issued a tax invoice of 2,484,615,592 won in total and reported sales in 2005. ③ The amount deposited in the corporate account of the non-party company in 2006 is 1,56,942,00 won in total, and the amount deposited in the corporate account of the non-party company in 2005 is 1,56,942,00 won in total, and the non-party company issued the tax invoice of 2,784,343,915 won in total and reported sales in 206.

B) However, in light of the above circumstances, the evidence as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.

In addition to the following circumstances, the non-party company also enters the instant borrowed account.

Each disposition against the non-party company that did not report a significant portion of the money to the public; and

The portion in the year 2004 to 2006 is legitimate.

① As seen earlier, the Nonparty Company did not have omitted the part of cash sales.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see it merely as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no reasonable ground to see that only the amount equivalent to the difference calculated by subtracting the amount reported by the company by issuing a tax invoice from the sum of the amount deposited in the account of the non-party company in the year 2004, 2005, and 2006, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the amount deposited in the account of the borrowed name of the case.

(2) According to the decision of the Director of the Tax Tribunal on the investigation of Nonparty Company

Through the division, the non-party company submitted evidentiary data, etc. among the amount of the borrowed account of this case

Only the remaining amount, except for the portion by which the circumstance that cannot be deemed as an omission in sales, shall be omitted;

As a result, each disposition against the non-party company was taken.

③ In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s money deposited in the instant borrowed name account is reasonable.

Not only did it prove that the part was not the omitted amount of sales, but also the above argument.

The circumstances to be placed are found.

3) The omission in sales in the year 2008 to 2012

The court's explanation about this part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance

- Paragraph 2)(b)(3) is the same as the entry, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. Determination on whether the exclusion period has expired

1) As to the principal liability for tax payment in the part of 2002 to 2007 of each of the dispositions in the instant case

According to Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, 5 years from the date when the national tax is assessable.

No national tax may be imposed after the lapse of ten years (No. 3): Provided, That where a taxpayer evades a national tax, obtains a refund or deduction by fraud or other unlawful means, ten years (No. 1); where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, seven years (No. 2) shall not be imposed; and where such a disposition is made after the expiration of the statutory due date of return, the disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du109522, Dec. 23, 2010). Here, “Fraud or other unlawful acts” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes means acts which are generally recognized as acts enabling the tax evasion, i.e., acts which make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and thus, it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or making a false tax return without accompanying any other acts, or where a taxpayer fails to file a tax return within the statutory due date of return, it can be deemed as 130 or 1.

In light of these legal principles, the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 17, Eul No. 21,22

Each entry of evidence shall include the following circumstances, i.e., the whole purport of the pleading:

Value-added tax and corporate tax at issue in each disposition against the company

It is a tax by which tax liability is determined by filing a return of tax base and amount of tax.

The name of the representative director and the employee of the non-party company from time to time for 10 years from time to time to time to the instant borrowed account.

The amount of the deposited revenue shall be up to KRW 8,307,220,674, and the period, number and amount shall be very reasonable.

(3) 4,789,068,212 won by omitting sales deposited in the instant borrowed account in cash.

(F) If such cash is deposited into an individual account for a long time, the ordinary tax amount;

In light of the fact that it is difficult to identify the fact of tax evasion by investigation, the non-party company

Value-added tax and corporate tax on the omitted amount of sales deposited in the instant borrowed account shall be evaded.

the tax imposition and collection of the tax has become impossible or remarkably difficult with the intention of active concealment.

Since it is reasonable to see that the non-party company was done within the exclusion period of 10 years on such premise.

of each of the dispositions in 2002 to 2007 is legitimate. Accordingly, the second part of this part is legitimate.

The plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the exclusion period for the principal tax liability is five years.

X.x

O Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Guhap11385 Decided December 3, 2015

November 9, 2016

January 18, 2017

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

[Claim]

Designation of the secondary taxpayer in the attached Forms 1 through 3 against the Plaintiff by the Defendant

The decision of the court of first instance was revoked (the "designation of the second taxpayer in the above claim was rejected by the court of first instance, but it was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court because the plaintiff did not appeal against it).

【Purpose of Appeal】

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against which the order to revoke is revoked below

C. The Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer; (b) revoked the imposition of each corporate tax listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 7 through 10 as of February 4, 2013; (c) imposed each value-added tax listed in [Attachment 2] Nos. 12 through 20 as of February 4, 2013; and (d) imposed each tax on each of the wage and salary income listed in [Attachment 3] Nos. 7 through 10 as of March 18, 2013.

It is so ordered as per Disposition 1.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is that "AA" in Part 5 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "BB (the name before the opening of the name shall be "BB"; hereinafter referred to as "BB")". Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following: therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the meantime, on October 29, 2015, the non-party company filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of each disposition against the non-party company, and received a judgment in favor of the part of the court ordering the revocation of the sales omission-related part in the year 2002 through 2007 at the Cheongju District Court. Accordingly, the non-party company and the defendant appealed against each part of the judgment against the non-party company (Cheongju District Court 2014Guhap613 and 2015Nu1449, hereinafter referred to as the "related case").

A. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

This court's explanation on each of the above parts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the first instance judgment (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the "A" of the first instance judgment Nos. 5, No. 1, and No. 13 is "BB" as "B". Thus, the court's determination on whether the plaintiff is a substantial shareholder of the non-party company is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The reason why the court's determination on whether the plaintiff is a substantial shareholder of the non-party company is based on each of the above parts is that the "AA" of the 7th, No. 7, and No. 15 of the 7th, "AA" is deemed BB, and therefore, the corresponding part of the reasons for the first instance judgment is identical to the entry [Article 3-1).

과세관청이 납세의무자에 대한 세무조사를 근거로 그 납세의무자가 당초 법인세 등의 신고 시에 누락한 매출액이 있음을 이유로 법인세 등의 부과처분을 하는 경우에 있어서 그와 같이 누락한 익금의 존재와 액수 등에 대해서는 과세관청이 증명책임을 부담하지만, 과세관청이 납세의무자가 기록하여 갖추고 있는 장부에 제대로 계상되어 있지 아니한 매출 누락액의 존재를 납세의무자가 실제 관리��사용하는 차명계좌의 존재를 통하여 입증한 경우에는 그 입증의 난이와 당사자 사이의 형평을 고려할 때, 그 매출 누락액이 위와 같은 차명계좌에 입금된 당해 사업연도에 귀속되는 익금이나 매출액이 아니라는 점을 납세의무자가 입증하지 못하는 이상, 일응 그 금액을 위 차명계좌에입금된 사업연도의 익금 등에 해당하는 것으로 추정하여 이를 해당 사업연도의 익금등에 포함한 것은 원칙적으로 타당하다고 할 것이다(대법원 2003. 7. 25. 선고 2002두5542 판결 참조). 이러한 법리에 비추어 갑 제18 내지 67호증의 각 기재 및 당심에서 제출된 증거들의 각 기재에다 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 인정되는 사정들을 종합하여 보면, 아래와 같이 이 사건 각 처분의 전제가 된 소외 회사에 대한 각 처분은 적법하다고 할 것인바, 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

1) Parts relating to the omission of sales in 202, 2003, 2007

가) ① ##지방국세청 범칙혐의자 심문에서 소외 회사의 대표이사 BBB, 이

shall not be effective.

2) Of the dispositions in this case, the period of imposition of the second tax liability imposed on the company’s oligopolistic shareholder, etc. for the part of the year 2002 through 207 itself shall proceed separately from the main tax liability, and it is reasonable to view that the period of imposition of the second tax liability is five years from the date on which the second tax liability is established, unless there are special circumstances. Meanwhile, in order to establish the second tax liability, the fact that the secondary tax liability meets the requirements, such as the delinquency of the main taxpayer, etc., and the period of establishment of the second tax liability shall be at least after the expiration of the period of payment of the main tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13234, May 9, 2012). According to the written evidence No. 3, each of the dispositions in this case against the non-party company may be recognized as having been on December 31, 201 and February 4, 2013. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s allegation that the second tax liability in this case was legitimate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of each disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim for revocation shall be dismissed. It