Whether it is a business operator who actually operates the place of business

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually participated in the key workplace, and instead, he directly participated in the operation of the instant workplace by means of fund management, etc. in addition to the registered titleholder of the instant workplace. As such, the instant disposition is legitimate.

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 45,042,930 on December 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff in 2005 and the imposition of KRW 10,522,680 on February 2, 2006 of value-added tax of KRW 205 on February 2, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 23, 2005 to November 23, 2005, the Plaintiff registered the business (registration number 00-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

B. The Defendant, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the instant place of business, revealed the fact that KRW 534,012,182 of the input tax amount was unjustly deducted from the return of the first quarter of 2005 on the instant place of business, and denied the tax credit on the relevant input tax amount, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 45,042,930 of the first quarter value-added tax in December 1, 2005 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

C. In addition, on February 2, 2006, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 10,522,680, which added 143,236 won to the second value-added tax of KRW 10,379,444 in 2005, which was reported and paid at the instant workplace (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2's evidence 1, Gap 3, Eul 1, Eul 2, Eul 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff borrowed the name of the business operator to ○○ who intends to operate the instant business, or did not have been either engaged in or divided into profits from the instant business establishment, the Plaintiff’s disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful even though the value-added tax on the instant business establishment should be imposed on ○○, an actual business operator, pursuant to the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

○ Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

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

○ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 21 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax or tax

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are omissions in details of the final tax return;

(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service makes a correction of the tax base and amount of tax payable or amount of tax refundable for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he shall make tax invoices and evidence: Provided, That in cases falling under

Article 23 (Collection)

(1) Where an entrepreneur makes a preliminary or final return on the tax base falls short of the payable amount, the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the business place shall collect the deficient tax amount, and where a decision or correction is made under Article 21 (1) through (3), the tax amount to be additionally paid according to

(2) Where an entrepreneur fails to make a preliminary return, or where there are errors or omissions in the details of a return or other causes prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business may, by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 21, investigate the tax base, payable tax amount

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From April 2004, the Plaintiff had his business registered in the instant workplace under the name of the Plaintiff upon ○○’s request while living with ○○○○○. On April 30, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for the business registration of the instant workplace. As to the location of the instant workplace, the Plaintiff did not lend the Plaintiff’s name to another person, along with the real estate lease agreement prepared by designating the Plaintiff as the lessee, and submitted a copy of the identification card to directly operate the said workplace.

(2) On July 15, 2005, the Plaintiff visited ○○○ Tax Office, and prepared a registration statement to change the location of the instant place of business to ○○○○-dong 56, ○○○○-dong 56, and submitted it along with the real estate lease agreement under the name of the Plaintiff.

(3) The Plaintiff opened an account in the name of the Plaintiff at ○ bank, and among which, among which, the Plaintiff deposited a bill received from ○○, a principal trader of the instant business establishment, the account of electronic bills transfer (Account Number ○○-○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○) was deposited into the management account (Account Number ○○-○○-○○○○○○○) managed by ○○○○○○ upon the Plaintiff’s request while directly managing the bill.

(4) On July 2005, the Plaintiff paid value-added tax on the instant place of business on October 24, 2005, when managing the deposit account of the said electronic bill, even after the settlement of living together with the conciliation division around July 2005.

(5) Although the Plaintiff did not regularly work at the instant workplace and consulted with the customer or assign a transport engineer a direct work at the instant workplace, it was known to the employees and the customer as the “child living together with the President (○○).”

(In fact that there is no dispute, A7 evidence, A7 evidence, A8-1, 2, and 5-1 to 3, B-6-1, 2, 7 evidence, 8, witness Lee ○, ○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

The following can be seen by the above facts. In other words, the plaintiff, while living with the Cho○○, leased the place of business in his own name and registered the business for the operation of the workplace of this case, and prepared and submitted a written confirmation that "vocational operation" rather than "vocational operation" to the defendant. The plaintiff did not reside in the workplace of this case but had been aware of the relationship between the plaintiff and his employees, and had been living with the Cho○○, several times, and had been living with the defendant. In full view of the fact that the plaintiff was directly managing the money deposited from the principal business partner of the workplace of this case and was directly paying the tax imposed on the business establishment of this case, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually participated in the business establishment of this case. Rather, in addition to the registered titleholder of the business establishment of this case, the plaintiff directly participated in the operation of the business establishment of this case by means of fund management, etc.

The plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff is a nominal business operator 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.