Whether a business operator is a business operator, and a person who has directly reported the closure of business is not a real name-holder.

Examining the details of the Plaintiff’s benefits, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an employee who received only wages to the relevant institution, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a mere nominal lender, as it appears that he/she had been involved in the operation of the instant

2013Guhap2536 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Economic Zone

00. Head of tax office

May 2, 2014

May 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 7, 2005 to June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s business in the name of the Plaintiff, from 432-26th floor in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

B. On August 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received five false tax invoices (value of KRW 200,001,200) that did not involve real transactions from KK Co., Ltd. in the second taxable period of 2006 while operating the instant business; and (b) filed a return of value-added tax by deducting them from the input tax amount; (c) thereby denying the deduction of the input tax amount; (d) accordingly, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 35,928,170 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Deputy Director of the Central District Tax Office on November 2, 2012; (c) filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on December 6, 2012, and accordingly, filed a return of value-added tax by deducting them from the input tax amount; (d) accordingly, (e) the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over each of the instant disposition.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is merely a person who lends the name of the business registration of the instant workplace to an OO who is a Dong-in OO, and the person who actually runs the instant workplace is OO. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful as it goes against the principle of substantial taxation.

According to the principle of substantial taxation, a taxpayer’s confirmation must be based on substance, not external appearance. If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be deemed a taxpayer (Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, the fact that the ownership of the transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and that there is another person to whom it actually belongs, bears the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11,

Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 5, witness evidence 2, witness evidence 2, and the purport of the whole testimony and arguments, the plaintiff directly made business registration and reported business closure to the workplace of this case.

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is only the nominal lender who lent the business registration name of the instant workplace to the OO only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 and the testimony of TT witness evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.