The amount of income generated from the place of business in the name of the master shall be deemed the sales of the actual business operator;

The amount of income generated from a place of business with a disguised loan of another person's name shall be deemed the sales of the actual business operator.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

2015Guhap8181 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ Kim

○ Head of Tax Office and 4

April 14, 2016

April 28, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On October 6, 2014, the imposition of value-added tax ○○○ (including additional tax) for the first term portion of the year 2013 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked by the former Defendant on the ground that the imposition of value-added tax was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 6, 1999, the Plaintiff is running an electronic commerce business with the trade name of ○○○○○○○-ro, ○○○○○○-ro, ○○○○○-ro, and ○○○-ro, a place of business.

B. On October 6, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification to the Plaintiff on October 6, 2013 of the Value-Added Tax ○○○ (including additional tax) for the first term portion of the Value-Added Tax (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for review on June 10, 2015, after filing an objection on the objection on January 9, 2015, but was dismissed on September 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s request made the method of operating the Internet shopping mall and managed funds to Cho Man-man ○○○ upon his request. Since the actual business entity of the key workplace is Gangwon-do, not the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful. (b) The relevant laws and regulations are unlawful.

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) fact finding;

1) Registered ○○○○○○-ro ○○○○○○-ro, ○○○○○-ro, and Adong ○○ is the Plaintiff’s domicile.

2) On December 31, 2013, a report on the closure of business was made on or around December 31, 2013, and around that time, there was an attempt to apply the provisions regarding simplified taxable persons by registering business again under the name of "CCC (formerly amended names: DDD)". However, the above company did not have any details of the report on sales since it was converted into a general taxable person on August 1, 2014, but it was closed on October 15, 2015. 3) The amount deposited into the account of the disputed workplace was transferred to the account in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant account”) within several days except for small amount of less than 10,000 won. The instant account is an account mainly used for the purpose of withdrawing the price, etc. to be paid by the Plaintiff to the purchaser. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over the facts, Gap, 14, 17, 18, 18 evidence No. 12-2, No. 3-1, No. 4-2, No.

D. Determination

In general, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proof of the fact of taxation requirements shall be deemed to be a taxable person. However, unless it is proved that the fact of taxation requirements is presumed to have been established in light of the empirical rules, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was an illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements unless it proves that the pertinent fact of taxation requirements is inappropriate to apply the empirical rules or that there are special circumstances to refrain from applying the said empirical rules in the pertinent case (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14284, Apr. 27, 2004). According to the above findings, it can be deemed that the income of the pertinent place of business belongs to the Plaintiff; the location of the pertinent place of business is consistent with the Plaintiff’s domicile; the Plaintiff can enjoy benefits such as the application of the provisions of a simplified taxable person; the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the importance of separating the accounts of each place of business or the management of funds from 1999 to the Plaintiff’s ○○, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In full view of these circumstances, the Plaintiff, as a real business entity at the key workplace, is deemed to have lent the name of Gangwon ○○ for the purpose of underreporting the value-added tax, etc. and registered in disguisedly the said workplace.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.