Whether a person who actually engages in cargo transportation business is actually a person;

As long as the name of business registration is registered in the name of the plaintiff, the defendant who is the tax authority that is merely a third party is bound to believe business registration and impose tax accordingly, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even if the disposition of this case is imposed on the plaintiff who is merely the nominal party, the defect cannot be deemed as serious and clear.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

상고이유에 관한 주장이 ′상고심절차에 관한 특례법‵ 제4조 제1항 각 호에 정한 사유를 포함하지 아니하거나 포함하더라도 그 주장 자체로 이유없는 때 등에는, 더 이상 심리를 하지 아니하고 상고를 기각하되 그 판결에는 이유의 기재를 생략할 수 있도록 되어 있다(위 특례법 제4조, 제5조).

As a result of examining all of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below, and the grounds of appeal, it is clear that the above grounds for non-trial conduct constitute grounds for appeal, the appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

[Judgment of Jeonju 2007Nu585 ( November 16, 2007)]

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party, and the costs of appeal incurred by additional claims in the trial shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim and plaintiff's purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. In the first instance, the defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of July 1, 2004, value-added tax for the second period of July 1, 2003, value-added tax for the second period of September 10, 2004, global income tax for the second period of September 10, 2003, value-added tax for 17,211,510 won for the second period of December 6, 2005, value-added tax for the second period of December 7, 2004, value-added tax for the first period of the first period of the year of 204, and value-added tax for 7,728,520 won for the first period of the year of 204, each of the above dispositions of imposition shall be revoked. In the first instance, each of the above dispositions of imposition shall be revoked (the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the second period of 26,84140 won for the plaintiff).

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal

On April 1, 2006, the first instance court accepted the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 26,842,140 for the year 2003, which the Defendant made to the Plaintiff. The Defendant appealed against this. Since the Defendant’s defect in the purport that the above disposition of imposition was revoked during the appellate trial, the Defendant’s appeal is deemed to have lost the benefit of appeal. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is unlawful.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) Details of the disposition;

(1) From January 2, 2003 to July 30, 2004, the Plaintiff is the nominal owner who registered his/her business with his/her trade name from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and with his/her type of business and type of business as a truck transportation business.

(2) During the 2003 period, ○○○○○○○○○○-○ in its second period, 62,51,000 won of the supply value received from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and 61,858,000 won for the second period period of 203 years, and received credit card sales slips in an amount equivalent to KRW 61,85,00 for the first period of 203 years, 203, 204, and 300 won for the first period of 204, 207, 207, 205, 200 won for the first period of 205, 300 won for the first period of 205, 205, 207, 201, 206, 207, 2005, 2005, 201.

(3) On July 5, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Defendant for the instant disposition. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for examination on December 27, 2006 on the ground that the period for the request for examination has expired.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and Eul evidence 1-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Judgment on the main claim

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the statement on the first disposition of the first instance court's decision, except for the change of "the first disposition" and "the first disposition" of each disposition of this case into "the first disposition of this case", and therefore, it is also accepted in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination on the conjunctive claim

In this part of the claim, the plaintiff's name ○○○, which is the plaintiff's name, was operated after the plaintiff's business registration was completed by misappropriation of the plaintiff's name, and the plaintiff did not have any participation in the above business, and it was not known that the name was stolen. The defendant's designation of the plaintiff as a taxpayer in accordance with the operation of ○○○○○, was in violation of the principle of substantial taxation as provided by Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the disposition in this case is null and void.

Therefore, as long as the name of business registration is registered in the name of the plaintiff, the defendant who is the tax authority that is merely a third party is bound to believe the business registration and impose the tax accordingly, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, even if the disposition of this case is imposed on the plaintiff who is merely the nominal lender, the defect cannot be deemed as serious and clear.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justifiable, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the supplementary claim added in the trial is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Electricju District Court 2006Guhap825 (2007.06.07)]

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s second quarter value-added tax for the second quarter of July 1, 2004, value-added tax for the second quarter of 2003 to the Plaintiff, KRW 17,211,510 on September 10, 2004, and KRW 17,211,510 on global income tax for the year 2003 to the Plaintiff, and December 6, 2005 to the Plaintiff

All part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period portion in 2003, the value-added tax for the first period in 2004, and the value-added tax for the first period in 2004 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 26,842,140 on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 3/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and 2/5 are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of July 1, 2004, KRW 7,802,010 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 2003, KRW 17,211,510 for the year 2003 as of September 10, 2004, KRW 7,195,640 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 2003 as of December 6, 2005, and KRW 7,728,520 for the first period of the year 204 is revoked, and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first period of the year 2004 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 2, 2003 to July 30, 2004, the Plaintiff is the nominal owner of the business, whose trade name from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to ○○○○○ Transportation, and whose type of business and type of business are truck transportation business.

B. During the second period of 203, 00, 000 won, 62,51,000 won, which was issued from ○○○○○○○-○○○○-○○, and 203, 55,181,00 won for the second period of 203, 61,858,00 won for the first period of 204, 200, 203, and 300 won for the first period of 203, 203, 207, 205, 200 won for the first period of 20, 206, 300 won for the first period of 20, 207, 200 won for the first period of 20, 305, 201, 206, 207, 205, 201, 206, 207, 2010 won for each of the above tax invoices.

C. On July 5, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for review of each of the dispositions of this case against the Defendant, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for review on December 27, 2006 on the ground that the period for review has expired, and dismissed the second disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the first disposition

(a) Relevant statutes;

director Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

① 제55조에 규정하는 처분에 대하여는 행정심판법의 규정을 적용하지 아니한다. 다만, 동법 제11조·제12조·제16조·제20조 및 제26조의 규정은 심사청구 또는 심판청구에 대하여 이를 준용하되, 이 경우 "위원회"는 "국세위원회", "국세심판관회의" 또는 "국세심판관합동회의"로 본다.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18 (1) (main sentence), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the administrative litigation under paragraph (2) shall be instituted within ninety days after decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is notified: Provided, That where decision is not notified within the period of decision prescribed in Article 65 (2) or the proviso of Article 81, the administrative litigation may be initiated from the date the prescribed period of decision expires even before the decision is notified.

(4) Where it has undergone a request for examination under Article 5 (5) 3, it shall be deemed to have undergone a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and paragraph (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis

(5) The period under paragraph (3) shall be invariable.

Article 61 (Period of Request)

(1) A request for evaluation shall be filed within 90 days from the date (when a disposition notice is received, the date of its receipt) on which an applicant becomes aware of the relevant disposition.

(2) Any person who desires to make a request for examination after passing through an objection shall file the request within ninety days after he is notified of the decision on the objection: Provided, That where the decision is not notified within the period for decision making referred to in the proviso of Article 66 (6), the request for examination may be filed after the period for decision expires even before

Article 66 (Raising Objections)

(6) The provisions of Articles 61 (1), (3) and (4), 62 (2), 63, the proviso to Article 64 (1), and Article 64 (2), and Articles 65 and 65-2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to raising objections: Provided, That "90 days" in Article 65 (2) shall be construed as "30 days".

Article 10 (Service Method of Documents)

(1) Documents provided for in Article 8 shall be served by means of delivery, mail or electronic delivery.

(2) When intending to serve documents related to notification, demand or disposition for arrears of tax payment, or orders issued by the Government under tax-related Acts by mail, they shall be served by registered mail: Provided, That a tax payment notice for interim prepayment under Article 65 (1) of the Income Tax Act and a tax payment notice for collection to collect pursuant to Article 18 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which falls short of the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree, may

B. Whether the lawsuit is lawful

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) The Defendant sent each tax notice by registered mail. On July 1, 2004, the Defendant’s second-year value-added tax of KRW 7,802,010 was served on July 9, 2004 by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on December 6, 2005, imposed the tax notice of KRW 17,211,510 on July 10, 204, respectively, by the Plaintiff’s imposition disposition of KRW 205,75,17,2005.

(B) The Plaintiff is not only the nominal owner of the business registration for ○ Transportation, but also the Plaintiff’s type of ○○○ (the Plaintiff’s type of ○○○○○○○○ (the Plaintiff’s type of ○○○○○) on January 2, 2003, indicated as the nominal owner of the land entry contract at the time of concluding the land entry contract with the ○○○○○○○○

(C) On May 7, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of “the submission of pertinent tax invoices and credit card sales slips to request the submission of explanatory data.” On June 4, 2004, the Defendant sent a notice of each tax notice on November 3, 2005, to the Plaintiff’s domicile on March 9, 206, and on August 24, 2004, the Defendant seized ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-○○-136 square meters, owned by the Plaintiff in order to collect value-added tax and general income tax based on each of the dispositions of this case.

(D) In addition, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the national tax refund amounting to KRW 2,030,000 on November 3, 2003, and KRW 155,500 on November 21, 2003. On November 15, 2003, the Plaintiff directly received the refund at ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ on December 4, 203.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 10 (part) evidence, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 5-1 through 6, Eul evidence 6-1 through 14, Eul evidence 8-1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

【No. 6, 10(part) Evidence

(2) Determination

Unlike general administrative litigation, an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of a disposition imposing national taxes cannot be filed without going through an administrative appeal (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). An objection may be filed against a disposition agency prior to the administrative appeal, but such objection shall also be filed within 90 days from the date on which the pertinent disposition became known (Articles 66(6) and 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In addition, “the date on which the pertinent disposition becomes known” under Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which set the period for filing a request for a trial pertaining to a disposition, refers to the date on which the relevant disposition is known through notice, public notice, or any other means, but this refers to the date on which the other party to the disposition or a person other than the person to whom the notice of disposition is given, makes a formal objection or request for a review, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date on which the notice of disposition was received in cases where a person to whom the disposition is the other party to the disposition has been given the authority to receive mail and other person.

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, at least 00, who is a type of the plaintiff, has allowed the truck transport business to use the plaintiff's name when operating ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 20,000 won received the national tax refund as well as the notification of each of the dispositions of this case from the defendant 20,000 won, and the fact that the plaintiff received the national tax refund. The plaintiff, who is a type of the plaintiff, paid the value-added tax, etc. in the plaintiff's name when operating ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 200,000 won after the lapse of 70,000 won of the tax imposed on the above ○ ○ 106,000 won of the tax imposed on the above ○ 205,000 won of the tax imposed on the defendant's 205,000 won of the tax imposed on 201.

3. Judgment on the second disposition

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's ○○ Transportation under the name of the plaintiff was operated by ○○, a punishment of the plaintiff, by stealing the plaintiff's name, after completing the business registration. The plaintiff did not have any participation in the above business, and the plaintiff was unaware of the illegal use of the plaintiff's name. Thus, the defendant asserts that designating the plaintiff as a taxpayer due to the operation of ○ Transportation violates the principle of substantial taxation as stipulated under Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus,

(2) On May 7, 2004 and October 31, 2005, prior to each taxation, the Defendant sent a notice to the Plaintiff stating that “the pertinent tax invoice and credit card sales slip are requested to be submitted.” On June 4, 2004, August 12, 2004; November 3, 2005; and on March 9, 2006, the Defendant received each advance notice of taxation; on August 24, 2004, ○○○○○○○○○○○○-○○-○○-136 square meters, which is owned by the Plaintiff, did not raise any objection to the Plaintiff; on the other hand, ○○○○○○-○○○-○○○-○○-○○-136 square meters, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not directly notify the Plaintiff of the tax refund; and ○○○-○○-1, 2005, which is owned by the Plaintiff on May 13, 2001.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, and Eul evidence 10, the plaintiff entered ○○○○○○○ University (former ○○○○ University) on March 3, 1998 and graduated from the above university on February 5, 2003. The plaintiff was employed on January 27, 2003, before graduation, through ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking the revocation of the first disposition among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and all of them are dismissed, and the part seeking the revocation of the second disposition is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.