1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of March 8, 2010 against the Plaintiff was KRW 761,950, and the first term portion of April 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 20, 2009 to June 30, 201, C engaged in a furniture manufacturing business (hereinafter “instant business entity”) with the location of Macheon-si B as the seat of Macheon-si was registered as the Plaintiff by the business entity.

B. The Defendant imposed the value-added tax due to the operation of the instant enterprise on the Plaintiff on the premise that the operator of the instant enterprise is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

The imposition of value-added tax shall be based on the amount for which the disposition is temporarily reverted as of March 8, 2010; Disposition No. 1 of this case; Disposition No. 2 of this case (Final) No. 761,950 won on April 1, 2010; Disposition No. 376,230 won on April 1, 2010; Disposition No. 3 of this case; Disposition No. 3 of this case, Disposition No. 572,420 on December 6, 2010; Disposition No. 4 of this case, Disposition No. 4 of this case, Disposition No. 1,291,910 on March 8, 201; Disposition No. 5 of this case, Disposition No. 5 of this case, No. 1,920,00 won on April 1, 201; Disposition No. 3720 on April 1, 2011; Disposition No. 1, No. 4201,94

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Plaintiff did not receive a tax notice of each of the dispositions of this case, each of the dispositions of this case is null and void. 2) The person who actually operated the instant enterprise is not D but D, and each of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiff who did not have a tax liability is null and void as it violates the substance over form principle.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The person who actually operated the instant business is the Plaintiff, and the Defendant served a notice of tax payment of the first through fifth of the instant disposition on the location of the instant business entity. The instant notice of tax payment was served on the Plaintiff’s domicile, but was returned, and thus, served by public notice pursuant to Article 11(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “instant service by public notice”).

As such, the Defendant issued a notice of tax payment of each of the instant dispositions to the Plaintiff by lawful means. 2) The instant business entity was actually operated.