Review 2013-011 (Law No. 23, 2013)

The disposition imposing the value-added tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the joint business is conducted is reasonable.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff has prepared a partnership agreement on the gas station business of this case, and on the same day, the Plaintiff was registered as a joint proprietor of the gas station of this case, received money twice from its partners, and maintained the joint business name of the gas station of this case within the time the Plaintiff reported the closure of the business of the gas station of this case until the date of filing a report on the closure of the business of the gas station of this case, the disposition that

Articles 14 and 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap3461 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

NewA

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

June 26, 2014

July 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on March 21, 2013 against the Plaintiff on the first half of 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On January 27, 2012, EXB registered its business and started its business to CCC oil stations located in OCO-dong 464-2 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant gas station"). On February 7, 2012, ranB reported its business correction to a joint business proprietor with the content that the Plaintiff’s share is 60%, and the franchiseB share is 40%," and "B. The Defendant confirmed the omission of the credit card sales amount and sales tax invoice OOOOOO on March 21, 2013, but dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for re-determination to the National Tax Service for re-determination on March 21, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant request for re-determination”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including relevant numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual business operator of the gas station of this case is AD and franchiseB, and the plaintiff only leased the gas station site and the building of this case and did not participate in the actual gas station business. The plaintiff prepared the business contract and registered only in the name of the joint business operator in the name of the business operator because the franchiseB failed to pay rent, etc. In fact, the plaintiff did not receive money as a distribution of profits from the franchiseB, and did not receive a report on the details of the operation, and the profits subject to taxation were attributed only to the franchiseB. Accordingly, the disposition of this case against the plaintiff who is only a joint business operator in the name of the joint business operator was unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On January 15, 2012, franchiseB: (a) signed a real estate lease agreement with the Plaintiff to lease the instant gas station site and building for a fixed period of 24 months from the date of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant gas station site and building; and (b) the deposit was to be paid by the 20th day of the same month; and (c) began to operate DoD and Habri station business upon delivery of the instant real estate.

"2) On February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff and franchiseB drafted a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to operate gas stations and distribute profits jointly from the instant real estate. The partnership agreement provides that the Plaintiff provided places necessary for the operation of gas stations and the franchiseB directly operates gas stations and the franchiseB distributes 60% of the monthly profits to the Plaintiff from February 1, 2012 to the termination of the partnership agreement; 3) franchiseB paid each of the Plaintiff KRW OOO on February 29, 2012 and KRW OOOO on March 19, 201.

4) On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against DoD and DoB seeking the instant gas station site and building name map, etc. with the Incheon District Court. On September 26, 2012, the said court acknowledged the cancellation of the lease agreement on the instant gas station site and building between the Plaintiff and DoBB, and may be deemed to have concluded a partnership agreement on the gas station business between the Plaintiff and DoBB. However, even if the said agreement was de facto terminated and the partnership was dissolved as the Plaintiff’s claim, the said judgment citing the Plaintiff’s above claim was declared (Dacheon District Court 2012 OOO), and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 4 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the actual business operator of the gas station of this case is not a plaintiff, not a plaintiff, only in the form of a business agreement between the plaintiff and the franchiseB with respect to whether the plaintiff is not the actual business operator of the gas station of this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments, such as the fact that the plaintiff prepared an agreement on the operation of the gas station of this case with the franchiseB, i.e., the fact that the plaintiff was registered as the joint business operator of the gas station of this case, the receipt of money twice from the franchiseB, the plaintiff maintained the joint business registration name of the gas station of this case from the first half of 2012 to January 21, 2013, the taxable period of the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff maintained the joint business registration name of the gas station of this case between the plaintiff and the franchiseB of this case. The plaintiff's assertion to this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.