Cho Jae-chul2014Gu2240 (O6. 16)

Since the actual business operator is not the plaintiff, it shall not be taxed on the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation.

Since taking lectures at a private teaching institute or taking part in a part in the AAE program, and the fact that the AAE program is not involved in the AAE program, and the AAE program is fully recognized by the AAB using each account in the name of the plaintiff, and all profits have been controlled and managed by the AAE program, it may not be taxed on the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

Does00

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

National Flag

June 12, 2015

July 22, 2015

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 0,00,000 for the second period of February 2, 2012 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014 shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a business entity of “00 Moda” with 00 00 - 00 - 1084-2015 - from the place of business.

B. In 200, upon filing a return on the tax base of value-added tax for the second period of 2012, Nonparty 000 and AA were delayed to issue a tax invoice. Accordingly, on January 2, 2014, the Defendant applied the additional tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 0,000,000 of the value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on April 7, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on June 16, 2014.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual business operator of 00Mono is 00 and 00, and the plaintiff is merely the nominal business operator, and under the substance over form principle, the value-added tax of this case should be imposed on 100 and 00. The disposition of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes.” Therefore, if there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages such income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner shall not be the person to whom such income, profit, or appearance belongs, but the person who substantially controls and manages the relevant taxable object pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person to be liable to pay taxes. In addition, whether such a case falls under such a case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (i) details of the agreement by the parties to the use of the name; (ii) the degree and scope of involvement by the nominal owner; (iii) internal responsibility and calculation relationship; and (iv) location of independent

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4 (including paper numbers), 6, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's business registration was made under the name of the plaintiff on May 31, 2009 upon the plaintiff's request by Gomo-in 00. However, from 2009 to 201, the plaintiff did not participate in the lecture or part-time work at a private teaching institute located in the Nowon-gu, and the fact that the 0000 Doo-si used each account in the name of the plaintiff and OO bank and controlled and managed all the profits.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the actual business operator of 00 Moo is not the plaintiff but the door00, it may not be taxed on the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation. The disposition of this case is unlawful and thus must be revoked.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.