Busan District Court 201Guhap1260 (No. 23, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Division 2010-0198 ( December 06, 2010)

An undertaking that a person in charge of taxation does not impose a tax shall not have the effect.

Even if the defendant's employee promised not to impose taxes, the tax imposed on the business operator may be imposed upon the fulfillment of the taxation requirements, and such promise shall not affect the validity of the disposition of this case as it has no effect on the validity of the disposition of this case.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Nu3685 Revocation, etc. of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX

Head of the tax office

Busan District Court Decision 201Guhap1260 Decided September 23, 2011

July 20, 2012

August 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of 000 won for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010, income tax of 000 won for local income tax of 200, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 00 won for global income tax of 2007, local income tax of 00 won for the year 2007, global income tax of 000 for the year 2005, value-added tax of 00 for the year 2005, value-added tax of 00 for the year 2006, value-added tax of 00 for the year 2006, value-added tax of 00 for the year 206, and value-added tax of 00 for the year 1, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of 000 won for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2007, global income tax of 1 year 2005, value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 2005, value-added tax of 00 for the second period of 2006, value-added tax of 00 for the first period of 2006, value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 206, and value-added tax of 00 for the first period of 207 is revoked.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and the former have operated the instant workplace as a partnership business or whether the former has operated the said workplace independently.

As to this, the first instance court, around April 2010, prepared and submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation that the Plaintiff had operated the instant workplace jointly with the NA when conducting an investigation into the instant workplace conducted around April 201. On May 10, 2003, the Plaintiff and the NA purchased a site of 188 square meters and its ground buildings in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, the site of the instant workplace, and registered co-ownership in 1/2 shares, respectively.O craft and YGGGG opened a YG opened business immediately after the closure of OO craft, and the Plaintiff continued to maintain a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff during the period of 0 years prior to the commencement of the operation of YGG, on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to the instant workplace were not in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were not in a de facto marital relationship with the 4th of July 14, 2007.

2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court

A. Determination on additional evidence in the trial

The testimony of Gap 10 No. 10-1 through 13 and witness 0B and KimCC submitted in the trial by evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the formerA independently operated the workplace of this case is difficult to believe and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise (the witness KimCC at the trial at the time when the defendant reported the tax evasion of the workplace of this case to the defendant, the defendant's person responsible for the defendant at the time when the defendant informed the defendant of the tax evasion of the workplace of this case. Even if the defendant's person in charge of the family affairs committed the above promise, the tax imposed on the business operator can be imposed upon the fulfillment of the taxation requirements, and such promise does not affect the validity of the disposition of this case, and therefore the above promise does not affect the validity of the disposition of this case).

B. Quotation of judgment of the court of first instance

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance on the issue of this case is just, and the court's explanation on this case is identical to the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the part 1. A. as set forth below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"The plaintiff, under his own name from October 1, 1998, registered the business of the Ocraft located in PY 188, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and operated the retail business of non-commercial goods. On December 28, 2006, the defendant discontinued his business on May 6, 2010 (the period from October 1, 1998 to December 7, 2006, the defendant revised the business registration of the above Ocraft under the name of the plaintiff and the former AA in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff from the sole name of the plaintiff for the period from October 1, 1998 to December 7, 2006). After that, on January 3, 2007, the plaintiff continues to engage in the retail business of non-commercial goods that were registered as a business operator under the exclusive name of the formerA (hereinafter referred to as the "YYGBD et al.").

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.