Whether it is reasonable to determine whether it is reasonable to determine who the actual business operator operates the task.

In light of the fact that a lessee or an entrepreneur of the business report certificate or business registration certificate for the excess point is the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff stated at the time of the tax investigation that the Plaintiff was the actual entrepreneur, the Plaintiff is considered as the actual entrepreneur.

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Determination and Correction)

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Defendant 2: (a) The portion exceeding KRW 5,880,00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 202 imposed on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2005 exceeds KRW 27,169,59; (b) the amount exceeding KRW 33,571,950 of the global income tax for the year 2002; (c) the amount exceeding KRW 28,010,990 of the global income tax for the year 2003; and (d) the amount exceeding KRW 28,010,90 of the global income tax for the year 2003; and (e) the amount exceeding KRW 20,795,160 of the value-added tax for the second period of 202 imposed on the Plaintiff on February 4, 2005; and (e) the amount exceeding KRW 14,568,600 of the value-added tax for the first period of 203; and (e) the amount exceeding 1214,204304,204.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or they can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 1-2-1 through 7, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 13-1 through 4, Gap evidence 15, and Eul evidence 1.

A. On July 10, 1989, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name "○○", and operated a retail store for multi-purpose ginseng products, etc. (hereinafter "the retail store of this case") in 000-00 located in Seoul ○○○○-dong 000, but operated a multi-purpose ginseng product, etc. (hereinafter "the retail store of this case") in the middle of the 1990s and received interest. On February 2, 2003, the Plaintiff registered his/her credit business with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 19, 200. On July 10, 2002, the Plaintiff registered his/her credit business additionally and registered his/her credit business under the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter "the subject of this case"). On July 10, 2002, the Plaintiff opened his/her business with the trade name "○○○-dong 00-00 "○○○○○".

B. Around December 2004, Defendant ○○ Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount by omitting sales or purchase as follows.

(1) 79,870,000 won which was omitted in sales in 2002, and 133,013,000 won which was omitted in sales in 203;

(2) 40 million won or omission of purchase in 2002 at the above retail store’s

(3) In the above part of the above part, 141,560,000 won which was omitted for the second term of February 2002, 114,976,000 won which was omitted for the first term of January 2003, 9,53,000 won which was omitted for the second term of February 2003, and 106,64,000 won which was omitted for the first term of January 204.

C. Accordingly, on February 1, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed upon the Plaintiff the tax amount of KRW 54,706,230, global income tax for the year 2002; KRW 74,508,610, global income tax for the year 2003; and KRW 27,169,59,590, global income tax for the second year 2002. On February 4, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed the tax amount of KRW 20,795,160, value-added tax for the second year 2002; KRW 14,568,60, value-added tax for the first year 203; KRW 12,062,400 for the second year 203; and KRW 1234,204 for the second year 204 for the year 2004.

C. On May 2, 2005, the Plaintiff appealed to the Director of the National Tax Tribunal. On March 7, 2006, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal imposed on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2005, value-added tax of 202, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2005, value-added tax of 15,260,000 won in 202, plus 40,00,000,00 won in 205,260,000 won in total, calculated on the basis of the estimated amount calculated on the basis of the estimated amount of gross income tax of 202, calculated on the basis of the estimated amount of global income tax of 202, and on the basis of such determination, the remaining amount of request for adjudgment was dismissed, and on the other hand, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal imposed on the Plaintiff the global income tax of 202, 2005, 205, 30,25,275.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s estimation of KRW 184,853,00,00, out of the purchase amount of the retail store of this case for the second period of February 2002, excluding KRW 40 million in the process of calculating the sales price. The remaining parts were legitimate as well as the tax return was made lawfully. As such, Defendant ○○ Tax Office rendered a decision of estimating KRW 184,853,00 by omitting sales with regard to the omitted purchase amount of KRW 40,000,00 in addition to the omitted purchase amount, although Defendant ○○ Tax Office did not err in calculating the sales price, it did not constitute a ground for estimating sales by simply omitting sales and by on-site investigation. As such, among each of the dispositions of this case based on estimation, the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 2002 and global income tax for the second year of 202 is unlawful in violation of the principle of taxation based on the Framework Act on National Taxes

(2) The Plaintiff lent 250 million won to ○○○○ from the opening of the instant tasks to 1% of the interest rate per annum, and only lent the name of the lessee of the lease contract of the said workplace as security for the loan to the Plaintiff, and as ○○ is the actual businessman of the instant tasks, the Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax for 202 and 203 years on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual businessman and the imposition of the value-added tax by the head of Defendant ○○ Tax Office for each of the instant dispositions on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual businessman is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the estimation and correction of tax base at the retail store of this case for the second period of 2002

In full view of the provisions of Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 69 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax authorities shall, in principle, based on tax invoices, account books, and other evidence in determining or correcting tax bases: Provided, That in the calculation of the tax base, if there is no necessary tax invoices, account books, or other evidence in the calculation of the tax base, or there is a reason under the proviso of Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, such as where there is no material part in the calculation of the tax base, the tax authorities shall determine the tax base by means of an additional investigation. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff did not enter the basic inventory, the current purchase, and the last inventory in the account book of the retail stores of this case in 202, and the fact that the plaintiff omitted the purchase amount of KRW 40 million in the calculation process of the purchase price does not conflict between the parties, and therefore, it is justifiable for the defendant to determine the tax base by the method of additional investigation

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to whether the Plaintiff is the actual business entity of the instant bakeries

(A) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, and witness Lee ○, Seo-○, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) The lease contract of the instant excess store is indicated as KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 50 million, KRW 5300,000, and the Plaintiff.

2) On July 9, 2002 and the 10th of the same month, the Plaintiff filed a business report and registered the business of the instant control point in the name of the Plaintiff, and the settlement account for receiving the credit card payment from the instant control point is the Plaintiff’s deposit account.

3) At the time when Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff as well as the person in charge of managing the instant task branch, stated that the actual business operator of the instant task branch was the Plaintiff, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

A) On July 15, 2002, the Plaintiff opened the instant tasks. On May 24, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the instant tasks from ○○○○○ for KRW 360 million in premium, and entered into a lease agreement on the said tasks on the 29th of the same month.

B) ○○○, as the manager and the manager of the instant task, managed the instant task by making a daily report on daily sales to the Plaintiff. From the opening of the business to December 2, 2002, the Plaintiff reported the current status of sales daily to the Plaintiff from the opening of the business, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was on the instant task once or once a month, and the Plaintiff reported the details of sales to the Plaintiff.

C) ○○○ deposited the Plaintiff’s sales into a deposit account at the Plaintiff’s ○○ Branch’s opening of ○○○ Bank. A daily sales table, tax invoices, receipts, etc. were delivered to the Plaintiff’s designated tax accountants. The said certified tax accountant reported value-added tax and global income tax as the Plaintiff’s business entity.

D) From 2003 to 2003, Ma○○ has been working as an employee of the instant task, engaged in the adjustment of goods and market-related activities, and his monthly salary is KRW 1,800,000.

(B) Determination

1) According to the above facts of recognition, the lease contract and business registration certificate for the instant excess points, and the tenant or business registration certificate for the sales report are the Plaintiff. Since ○○○○, a plaintiff and his employee, made a statement as the Plaintiff as the actual business operator on specific grounds about the operation status, etc. of the excess points at the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff is ratified as the actual business operator of the instant excess points. In the following respect, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to reverse it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

2) The Plaintiff alleged that 00 million won was lent to ○○○ by 1% per month interest, and that ○○○ was asked for a false statement at the time of the tax investigation to exempt responsibilities because she did not report on the interest income. However, the Plaintiff offered a relatively large amount of money from 250 million won without any special security (Evidence B No. 8) to a credit service provider, which had experienced several lawsuits from 2000 to 200 million won for debt collection. It is difficult to easily understand that 1% per month interest was not passed ( even if she was a tenant in the name of ○○○, 50 million won is more than the number of loans, and 50 million won is less than 50,000 won, and 50,000 won is less than 5,300,000 won and more than 5,300,000 won, and the reasons for the reversal of the Plaintiff’s statement to this effect and its reasons are no more persuasive.

The plaintiff asserts that ○○○ opened a passbook in the name of the plaintiff to deposit the sales revenue of the instant subject in the bank account, and that he paid personal expenses, such as Rason’s own son’s own son’s own son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s testimony is difficult to believe it in light of the statement at the time of the initial tax investigation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. It was established in the name of the plaintiff by ○○ ○, without borrowing the name from his her son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son

The plaintiff asserted that ○○○ paid monthly interest of KRW 2.5 million to the plaintiff’s installment savings and fire insurance premium, KRW 5.2 million each, and KRW 9.9 million each, and that the remaining KRW 9.90,000,000,000 to the plaintiff was remitted to the plaintiff in cash. However, the plaintiff’s monetary withdrawal payment (No. 7) of the plaintiff’s individual states that the amount of surplus income is KRW 4,00,000 on July 22, 2003, KRW 3.3 billion on October 21, 2003, KRW 90,000 on March 23, 2004, KRW 200,000 on May 18, 2004, KRW 9,000 on June 18, 2004, KRW 200 on June 28, 2004, not on the ground that it is not on the basis of the monthly revenue.

○○ alleged that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a business operator in that he received sanitary education in order to open the instant task, but according to the Food Sanitation Act, any person who intends to conduct a business referred to in Article 21 shall receive prior education on sanitation (the main sentence of Article 27(1)), and any person who does not directly engage in a business or intends to conduct a business at least two places among those who are required to undergo sanitary education under Article 27(1) and (1), may have the person in charge of food sanitation undergo education (Article 27(3)). Thus, it cannot be the ground for the Plaintiff’s failure to undergo the sanitary education as a business operator of the instant task (Article 27(3)).

3. Conclusion

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

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

[Framework Act on National Taxes]

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and a person to whom such ownership belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom such person actually belongs as a taxpayer.

(2) The provisions concerning the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of income, profit, property, act or transaction.

Article 16 (Ground Taxation)

(1) If any person liable for tax payment keeps and enters a book under tax-related Acts, the investigation and determination of the tax base of the national tax concerned shall be based on the book kept and entered and related documentary evidence.

(2) In investigating and determining national taxes under paragraph (1), if the contents of the entry are different from facts or are omitted from the entry, it may be determined in accordance with the facts examined by the Government for such part.

(3) When the Government examines and determines any fact different from the contents of entry or omission in the entry under paragraph (2), the fact examined and ground for determination by the Government shall be stated additionally in the determination note.

[Valued Tax]

Article 21 (Settlement and Correction)

(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service determines or revises the tax base and amount of tax payable or refundable for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall do so on the basis of tax invoices, account books and other evidence:

1. Where tax invoices, books, and other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base do not exist or important parts are incomplete;

2. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other evidence are obviously false in light of the scale of facilities, the number of employees, and the market prices of raw materials, commodities, products, or various charges;

3. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the quantity of raw materials used, power used, and other operational conditions.

[Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax]

Article 69 (Methods of Estimation, Determination and Revision)

(1) Estimated amounts under the proviso to Article 21 (2) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. The method of calculating by way of a type of sphere with other partners in the same business, whose book keeping is deemed to be justifiable and whose report has not been corrected under the provisions of Article 21 (1) of the Act in good faith;

2. Where there exists any production ratio surveyed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with respect to input raw materials by industry, the method of calculating by applying the market price of the quantity supplied during the relevant taxation period to the production amount

3. Where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service has business efficiency which determines the relationship between the quantity and value of human and material facilities (employee, guest rooms, places of business, vehicles, water supply, electricity, etc.) related to the business and the sales, the method of calculating by applying such business.

4. Calculation method by any of the following criteria determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for each type of business or each region:

(a) Input quantity per unit of won, which determines the relationship between the quantity of all or part of the raw materials and supplementary materials input for production and the quantity of production;

(b) A cost-related ratio which determines the relationship between all or some of the costs and sales among personnel expenses, rent, material expenses, water, mineral heat, and other operating expenses;

(c) A commodities turnover rate which determines the relationship between the average stored amount during a fixed period and the sales amount or the sales price;

(d) A sales profit rate which determines the ratio of the sales to the gross sales profit during a fixed period;

(e) The value-added rate determined by the sales amount and value-added amount during a fixed period.

5. In cases where the ratio under subparagraphs 2 through 4 may be computed on the businessman subject to the determination and revision of estimation, the method of calculation by applying it thereto;

6. For food, accommodation and service business, which are mainly traded for end-consumers, the method of calculating according to the membership inspection criteria determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

[Food Sanitation]

Article 27 (Sanitary Education)

(2) Any person who intends to run the business as prescribed in Article 21 shall, in advance, undergo an education on sanitation (shortest omission).

(3) Where a person who is not directly engaged in the business or intends to operate a business in not less than two places, from among those who are obliged to receive the sanitation education under paragraphs (1) and (2), designates a person responsible for food sanitation from among his/her employees, he/she may have such person responsible for the business receive the education (the short sentence omitted).

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du16721 ( October 25, 2007)]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or are recognized as groundless. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per