Appropriateness of the assertion that the name holder of a joint project is the name holder

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement and the letter of self-employment were falsely prepared, it is judged as joint business operators by viewing that some of the liquidation money was received as investment money while closing the business of this case.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the claim are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on August 13, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. In the case of disposition:

A. As of November 15, 2005, 2005, ○○○○ Game Game Center (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with respect to an adult amusement room located in ○○○○○ Dong-dong 789 (hereinafter “instant place of business”), the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, etc. entered into a business partnership agreement with the Plaintiff, etc. as a joint business proprietor (hereinafter “instant business partnership agreement”).

B. On December 22, 2005, the Plaintiff, etc., who was a workplace partner and was the nominal owner in the form of the instant workplace, was issued a certificate of game service provider from the Chungcheongbuk-gu Office, ○○○○○○-si, and commenced the business of the instant workplace from January 2006. However, as the business performance was poor, the Plaintiff, etc. reported the closure of the instant workplace on May 16, 2006.

C. On the other hand, on March 24, 2007, the Plaintiff et al. prepared a self-statement recognizing the Plaintiff et al. as joint business operators of the instant business establishment and as the nominal name holder (hereinafter “self-statement”), and submitted the above self-statement and the instant contract to the Defendant.

D. Accordingly, on May 15, 2007, the Defendant made ex officio a business registration with the Plaintiff et al. as joint business operators based on the instant agreement and the self-act, and on August 13, 2007, rendered a disposition to determine and impose on the Plaintiff et al. a non-reported tax base and tax amount of KRW 453,202,40 for the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2006, when the Plaintiff et al. engaged in business (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 4 through 7, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, and Eul evidence 9

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual business operator of the workplace of this case is ○○ and ○, and ○ Disease is a business title holder in the form of lending his own name. Also, upon the request of ○○ and ○○○○○, the Plaintiff prepared a false business contract of this case where the Plaintiff is a joint business proprietor upon the request of ○○ and ○○○○. Therefore, the Plaintiff merely lent the name of the partner of the workplace of this case and actually invested in the workplace of this case, and there is no fact about the management, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case which recognized the Plaintiff as a joint business proprietor of the workplace of this case and imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

Even if the plaintiff is a joint proprietor of the business place of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the disposition of this case imposed on the game machine for the value of service not received by the owner of the game machine of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case must be revoked.

B. Determination

First of all, as described in the instant agreement, about whether the Plaintiff leased only the name of a joint business operator or the name of a joint business operator to reduce value-added tax scheduled to be imposed at the said business place, as described in the instant agreement, the Plaintiff entered himself as the partner of the instant business place, prepared and sealed the instant agreement and the letter of self-statement, and submitted them to the Defendant. As such, contrary to the explicit entry in the said agreement and the letter of self-statement prepared by himself, the Plaintiff must prove that he is not a partner of the instant business place.

(10) The plaintiff's 6th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff's 6th 6th 2th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 60th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 19.

Next, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the amount actually received by the owner of a game machine should be considered as the price for the service, and that the amount input in the game machine cannot be considered as the price for the service, it is only the service of using the game machine to provide merchandise coupons to the user of the game machine. In calculating the value-added tax base, the total amount input by the game machine users in the game machine cannot be deducted from the face value or acquisition value of merchandise coupons provided by the game machine users as free gift to the game machine users (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11211, Sept. 25, 2008). Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case imposing value-added tax on the game machine by regarding the amount used for using the game machine as the price for service,

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing value-added tax is legitimate by deeming the Plaintiff as joint business operators of the instant business establishment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.