National taxes collected by the Defendant from the Plaintiffs based on taxation disposition cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment which lacks legal grounds.

As long as a taxation disposition is not void as it is not a matter of course, the validity of the said taxation disposition cannot be denied before revocation after undergoing the objection procedure prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and therefore, the national tax collected by the Defendant from the Plaintiffs based on the above taxation disposition cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment which lacks legal grounds.

National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 516062 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

NewA

Korea

April 28, 2015

May 19, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

- 2-Cheong-dong Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff - the interest of 5% per annum from April 17, 2009 to the date of this decision, and of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment. -

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed the name of the business operator in the “DD” operated by KimB, the Plaintiff was responsible for all debts and taxes and public charges to be borne by KimB, and the Plaintiff was to be employed as an employee of “DD”, and was lent the name of the business operator to KimB from December 1, 2006 to April 30, 2008, and was employed as an employee of oil and retired.

B. On April 25, 2008, the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of DD’s business registration, and KimB did not pay value-added tax, and thus, the value-added tax was unpaid. On April 25, 2008, the Defendant followed the attachment and public sale procedure for DD 4-1 forest and field No. 23,207 square meters for the Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff owned.

D. The above forest was sold on March 19, 200, and the Defendant received c, c, c, 630 won in total from the total amount of the sale price to be distributed, either a.a.a., 470 won on April 16, 2009, and value-added tax b,bb, 160 won on default.

E. Since it is obvious that D's actual business owner is KimB, the disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual business owner is null and void. Accordingly, on the premise that the disposition imposing value-added tax is valid, the Defendant's disposition of selling the above forest by public sale and receiving dd, d, 630 won is an obligation to return the above money to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

In addition to the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 10 (including paper numbers), the trade name shall be "D" and the JJririririi of HH Eup at the time of Mineju, the location of the place of business

- With respect to the business whose type of business is 3-257-11, "construction/production," and category of business as "construction/building stones processing," the business registration was made in the Plaintiff's name from December 1, 2006 to April 30, 2008. In relation to the business of this case, even though the director of the tax office notified the Plaintiff to pay value-added tax for the above period, he notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the notified tax calculated by adding the additional additional tax for arrears if the tax was not paid. On the other hand, in relation to the business of this case, the global income tax return for 2007 under the Plaintiff's name was filed on May 29, 2008 e, e, e, e, 523 won, tax amount to be paid 6,ff, 131 won (the tax amount to be collected h,hhh, 764 won - 53, 6308 won, and the Defendant did not otherwise notify the above tax amount to the Plaintiff 206.8.1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that each of the above and each of the above taxation are invalid is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.

- 4-