It cannot be deemed that the defect in the disposition of this case is serious.

Even if there is a defect that is a mere formal business operator of the disposition of this case misleads the plaintiff as a business operator of this case, such defect cannot be deemed objectively apparent, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court 2018Guhap69630

00

00. Head of tax office

00 The value-added tax for the first period of September 5, 2013 that the director of the tax office notified to the Plaintiff on September 5, 2013.

Recognizing that each disposition of KRW 0, KRW 0, value-added tax for the second period of March 7, 2014, and KRW 0, value-added tax for the first period of September 2, 2014, notified on September 2, 2014, becomes invalid;

00 The Director of the Tax Office shall revert to the Plaintiff, as notified on August 6, 2014, the global income tax of 2013.

Sector 0 KRW 0, KRW 0 for global income tax for the year 2014 notified on August 3, 2015, and KRW 0 for global income tax for the year 2015 notified on November 4, 2015 respectively are invalid.

January 10, 2019

January 24, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 30, 2013 to July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was registered as an entrepreneur of “AAA” (hereinafter “instant workplace”). (b) The Plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax and comprehensive income tax related to the instant workplace on September 5, 2013; (c) the first term portion of value-added tax on March 2013; (d) the second term portion of value-added tax on March 7, 2013; (e) the first term portion of value-added tax on July 2014; (e) the first term portion of value-added tax on September 2014; (e) the imposition of value-added tax on September 2014; and (e) the imposition of value-added tax on September 2, 2014; and (e) the imposition of value-added tax on each of the global income for 20 years including the first term portion of global income tax on August 6, 2014; and (e) the imposition of value-added tax on each of KRW 2015.30.1.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the actual business operator of the instant business is Kim H, the Plaintiff’s life father, and the instant disposition, which is merely the nominal owner, is null and void against the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Determination

In light of the substance over form principle, the determination of a taxpayer should be based on legal substance, not external appearance, so 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 tax-related Acts shall apply to the person to whom it actually belongs. However, the name lending is an act promoting tax evasion under an agreement with the actual business operator, and it is difficult to grasp the substance in the outside part, and the tax authority, barring any special circumstance, should regard the nominal business operator as the actual business operator and impose tax on the actual business operator, and the burden of asserting and proving that the substance over form is possible on the ground that it is different from the actual business relationship, is against the person who disputes the taxation of the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun. 26,

In addition, in a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and it can only be clarified whether they are subject to taxation by accurately investigating the relevant facts, if it is necessary to clarify whether they are subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that it would be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation is null and void per annum (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002

The facts that the Plaintiff was registered as the representative of the workplace of this case from April 30, 2013 to July 17, 2015 are as seen earlier. In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 3, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants knew the actual business entity of the workplace of this case at the time of the instant disposition, which was not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff. Therefore, whether the Plaintiff’s father, Kim HH is the actual business entity of the workplace of this case can only be identified by the tax authority only after conducting a factual investigation accurately. Thus, even if there is a defect that the Plaintiff, who was merely a formal business entity, was erroneous as the business entity of the workplace of this case, it cannot be said that the defect is objectively evident, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the invalidity per se.

3. Conclusion

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