Even if there is any defect in deeming that the Plaintiff, only the nominal lender, has the liability to pay taxes, such defect cannot be deemed apparent in appearance.

Since the fact that the Plaintiff was not an actual business entity due to the Plaintiff’s nominal lending may be revealed as a secret to accurately investigate the facts, even if there is a defect in the disposition of imposition imposed against the Plaintiff, not an actual business entity, it cannot be deemed that the defect is objectively evident.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Guhap1473 Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax, etc.

O*

City Tax Director*

June 13, 2017

June 27, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each value-added tax collection disposition in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 13 against the Plaintiff, each disposition imposing additional tax thereon, and each disposition imposing additional tax on each global income tax listed in Nos. 14 through 19 in the same list, and each disposition imposing additional tax on the Plaintiff is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 15, 2009 to November 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was registered as an individual entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the instant business”) with respect to a business entity with a trade name, i.e., business entity operating machine parts manufacturing business in * p*C.

B. The Defendant, from September 8, 2009 to September 5, 2013, set forth in [Attachment List 1 to 1], to the Plaintiff.

The imposition and collection disposition of each value-added tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) stated in 3 times, and each global income tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) described in 14 through 19 out of the same list from August 5, 2010 to November 5, 2012 were imposed and collected (the imposition and collection disposition of each of the above value-added tax and each of the above global income tax are added to "each of the above global income tax").

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal seeking revocation of part of the imposition and collection disposition of each value-added tax as stated in paragraph 1(b). The Tax Tribunal on October 14, 2015

The appeal was dismissed. The reason is that the notice of the unpaid value-added tax is merely a procedure for collecting the amount of tax confirmed by the declaration of value-added tax, and it does not constitute the object of appeal, and that the notice of scheduled value-added tax was 90 days before the filing period

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, and 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

원고 명의의 이 사건 사업자 등록은 원고의 아버지인 오@@에 의하여 원고의 허락없이 이루어진 것으로 원고는 위와 같이 등록된 사업체를 운영하거나 이로 인하여 수익을 얻은 사실이 없고, 이 사건 각 처분은 원고에게 적법하게 송달되지 아니하였다.

Therefore, each disposition of this case is invalid because there is a serious and clear defect.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant asserts that, among the attached list, the imposition of the value-added tax for the period from No. 1 to No. 2, 2009 out of the attached list, and the collection of the principal tax for the period from 2009 to 2011 on global income tax is merely a procedure for collecting the same amount of tax as the reported tax, which became final and conclusive without any correction as to the reported matters by the tax authority, and thus, it is unlawful.

B. In cases where a tax authority considers a taxpayer’s tax return to be the final and conclusive tax liability, and takes place as a collection disposition ordering the taxpayer to perform the tax liability, if there is any defect that constitutes grounds for invalidation as a matter of course in the taxpayer’s return, such defect shall be succeeded to the collection disposition, which is the subsequent disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14394, Sept. 8, 2006).

C. The Plaintiff asserted the grounds for invalidation of the preceding report, which became final and conclusive on the premise that his father's tax liability was registered by stealing his name, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant may dispute the validity of each collection disposition asserted by the Defendant.

The defense prior to the merits is without merit.

5. Determination of legality of each of the dispositions of this case

A. Judgment on the assertion of identity theft

1) 원고의 아버지 오@@이 원고 모르게 원고 명의로 '피**크'라는 상호로 사업자등록을 한 후 사업장을 운영하였고, 그에 따라 피고가 과세대상자가 아닌 원고에게 이 사건 각 처분을 하였는지 본다.

2) 갑 제1, 2호증, 을 제2, 3, 6, 8, 10호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 2010년 및 2011년 피**크 사업장의 사업소득과 원고의 근로소득을 합산하여 종합소득세를 신고한 점, ② 이 사건 각 처분은 2009. 9. 8.부터 2013. 9. 5.까지 비교적 장기간에 걸쳐 있었는데, 위 ① 사정에 비추어 볼 때, 원고가 명의도용 사실을 전혀 몰랐다고 보기 어려운 점, ③ 원고는 오@@에 대하여 민사적 또는 형사적 책임을 물으려 한 사실은 없는 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 오@@은 원고의 아버지인 점 등을 고려하면 오@@이 원고 모르게 원고 명의로 사업자등록을 하였다고 보기 어렵고, 원고의 명시적 또는 묵시적 동의에 따른 것으로 보인다. 따라서 그와 다른 전제에 있는 원고의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

3) 설령, 이 사건 사업자 등록이 원고의 동의 없이 오@@에 의하여 전적으로 이루어졌다고 보더라도 과세대상이 되지 아니하는 어떤 법률관계나 사실관계에 대하여 이를 과세대상이 되는 것으로 오인할 만한 객관적인 사정이 있는 경우에, 그것이 과세대상이 되는지의 여부가 그 사실관계를 정확히 조사하여야 비로소 밝혀질 수 있는 경우라면, 그 하자가 중대하더라도 외관상 명백하다고 할 수 없어 그와 같이 과세 요건사실을 오인한 위법의 과세처분을 당연 무효라고 볼 수는 없는데(대법원 2012. 2. 23. 선고 2011두22723 판결 등 참조), '피**크'는 원고 명의로 사업자 등록이 되어 있으므로 과세관청으로서는 '피**크'를 운영한 납세의무자가 원고라고 오인할 만한 객관적인 사정이 있다고 할 것이고, 사업자 등록과 달리 원고가 실제 사업자가 아니라는 사정은 사실관계를 정확히 조사하여야 비로소 밝혀질 수 있는 것이어서, 실제 사업자가 아닌 원고에 대하여 한 부과처분에 하자가 있다 하여도 그 하자가 객관적으로 명백하다고 보기 어렵다.

B. Determination as to the assertion that there was no legitimate service

1) Determination on the service by publication (each of the dispositions listed in Nos. 6, 9, 14, and 16 in the attached list)

A) Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that a document shall be served by registered mail when it is intended to be served by mail. Article 11(1) of the same Act provides that the reason why the document may be served by means of service by public notice under tax laws, such as a tax payment notice, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree: (a) where the address or business office is located overseas ( Subparagraph 1); (b) where the address or business office is unclear (Article 10(4) (Article 10(4)); (c) where the document is served by registered mail but is returned to the addressee due to the absence of the recipient (Article 7-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

If it is deemed appropriate (No. 2).

B) If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, 9, and 10-1, 3, and 11 of the evidence Nos. 8-2, the Plaintiff shall make a statement from May 29, 2003 to July 20, 2009.

Sung-dong*, from July 21, 2009 to the date, the fact that the moving-in report for resident registration was made in Yancheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Incheon-si, and the location of 'P*C' place of business from May 15, 2009 to April 8, 2012, which is the date of establishment, shall be as the Corporation 1 until November 30, 2013, which is the date of closure of business, from April 9, 2012. The defendant may recognize the fact that each disposition listed in the separate list Nos. 6 and 9 were delivered three times every time as to each disposition listed in the separate list Nos. 14 and 16, and each plaintiff's domicile or place of business were sent by registered mail, but all of which was returned within the period of payment.

C) In full view of the above statutes and facts of recognition, it is lawful for the Defendant to serve each disposition listed in Nos. 6, 9, 14, and 16 in the separate sheet by public notice. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the remainder (attached list Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10 through 13, 15,

Each disposition entered in 17 through 19)

A) As seen earlier, Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where a document is to be served by mail, it shall be served by registered mail. However, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if a notice of tax payment of income tax to pay for interim prepayment falls short of five hundred thousand won, it may be served by regular mail. In addition, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, if a person to receive the document fails to do so at the place where the document is to be served, the document may be served to such employee, other employee, or a person

B) In addition, in light of the purport of the relevant provisions, such as the Postal Service Act, where a postal item is sent by means of registration, barring special circumstances such as return, it shall be deemed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13127, Dec. 11, 1992).

C) From May 29, 2003 to July 20, 2009, the Plaintiff made a moving-in report for resident registration to Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, and from July 21, 2009 to Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu. The Plaintiff’s mother ** and south * is registered as resident * as mentioned above or as stated in evidence 1. According to the overall purport of the arguments, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s written notice for moving-in registration to his domicile or domicile ** * 17,8,10 through 13, and 17 through 19 as stated in the separate sheet, and the Defendant can recognize the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice for global income from October 10, 2010 to 30.

D) Examining the above relevant legal principles, statutes, and facts of recognition in full view, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant lawfully served the Plaintiff with each of the dispositions set forth in Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10 through 13, 15, 17, and 19 in the attached list. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

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