Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-6378 ( May 20, 2016)

Cho High-2015-Seoul Government-0608 (Law No. 19, 2015)

Where there is another person who substantially controls and manages, the taxpayer;

If there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages the taxable object, such as income or income, the person who actually controls and manages the taxable object in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person liable for tax payment.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu48944 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap6378 decided May 20, 2016

October 18, 2016

November 1, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the year 201 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows. Thus, the reasoning for this Court’s ruling is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

○ From 5th of the first instance court ruling, the term “this court” is referred to as “court of the first instance”.

○ 6 on the last page of the fifth decision of the court of first instance: 12 to 16 on the following:

○ Part 7 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court, by inserting the following:

F) The fact that computer peripheral device sales business was registered under the Plaintiff’s name, but this was conducted upon the request of EE, the representative director of the said company, in order to receive smuggling wages from DD unemployment. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually engaged in the instant business even before the instant case was registered under the Plaintiff’s name.

G) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff actually engaged in the instant business in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any restrictions on the time and place of sale due to the characteristics of electronic commerce; and (b) the Plaintiff did not have any other occupation or frequent business trips; and (c) the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number in contact information for the purchase of goods.

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 23 and 24, and the fact-finding results with respect to FFF of this court, the overall purport of the arguments is as follows: The phone number posted on the product information website of FF from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 is different from the mobile phone number (1111), the plaintiff's mobile phone number (111) recorded in HH, and the mobile phone number (1112), and the actual operation of the business of this case is different from that of the plaintiff's mobile phone number (1112). According to the certification issue for online sales registration, although the counseling number for actual sales was stated in another telephone number (00-000) and the consultation number for actual sales was stated in the defendant's mobile phone number (00-00). Meanwhile, the plaintiff's mobile phone number (the plaintiff's mobile phone number) cannot be determined as 00).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.