Even if the Plaintiff is not a nominal lender, it cannot be deemed that the defect is apparent and thus is not void as a matter of course.

Since the fact that the Plaintiff is only the nominal name holder of business registration can only be found to be the fact-finding that the Plaintiff is merely the nominal name holder, even if the Plaintiff is not the nominal name holder, it is difficult to deem that the disposition of this case can not be deemed to be apparent and invalid.

2012Guhap2232 global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

KimAAAA

Kimhae Tax Office et al.

April 18, 2013

June 27, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

It is confirmed that the disposition taken by the Defendants against the Plaintiff as stated in the [Attachment] List of Taxation Disposition is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the trade name "B" from August 16, 200 to December 31, 2001, and on January 1, 2001.

"Along with 9. to July 31, 2001, it was registered as a business operator who engages in each construction machinery leasing business". (B) The Defendants notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should pay the total amount of value-added tax for 200 years, 201, 2001, and 200 years, and the total amount of income tax for 20 years as shown in the separate sheet of taxation disposition (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 through 4 (if available, the number omitted, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff lending the former husband's business registration name BB andCC mid-term to the former husband, and the latter actually operated the above business entity, and the disposition of this case imposing global income tax and value-added tax on the plaintiff who is not the actual business entity is null and void.

B. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “where there is a person to whom the income, earnings, and assets, and transactions, which are the subject of taxation, are less nominal, and there is another person to whom they actually belong, the person to whom they actually belong shall be liable as a taxpayer.” However, the name lending is an act promoting tax evasion under an agreement with the actual entrepreneur, and in other parts, it is difficult to grasp the substance, barring special circumstances, the tax authority considers the person to be the actual entrepreneur and imposes tax, and the burden of proof is clearly alleged that the substantial taxation can be imposed on a separate actual entrepreneur who is not the nominal owner on the ground that it is different from the actual relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun. 26, 1984; 200; 200Nu68, Jan. 26, 1984; 2000; 3.0.

2) In the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiff leased the above BB andCC’s name to DoD is not a dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, in full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the instant pleadings, and even if the Plaintiff is not a real business operator of the above BB andCC, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition was subject to an inevitable invalidation, since it is difficult to deem that the defect is apparent. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) The facts that the Plaintiff is merely a person who has registered his/her business in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not supply goods or services, as the BB andCC had registered its business in the name of the Plaintiff, can only be found out only after accurately investigating the facts.

B) The Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount of global income tax for 2001, and the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax for the second period portion for 2000 are reported in the Plaintiff’s name.

C) On August 16, 200 between a limited liability company BB and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff signed and sealed the construction machinery rental business contract.

D) Each report on business closure of BB andCC mid-term is also made in the name of the Plaintiff.

E) If there exist such circumstances, it would be sufficient to deem that the Defendants had objective circumstances to mislead the Plaintiff, the nominal name holder, to be subject to taxation.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.