Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-60763 (2018.08)

Whether the Plaintiff is an actual business operator of the key workplace

Pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation, a person who substantially controls the taxable object should be a taxpayer. Determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the details of the name use, the content of the agreement between the parties, the degree and scope of the nominal involvement, the relationship between internal responsibility and calculation, the location of independent management and disposition authority over

2018Nu61798 Detailed global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap60763 Decided 2018.08

November 23, 2018

December 21, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 242,057,930 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2016 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this decision is as follows, and the reason for this decision is the same as the reason for the decision of the first instance except for the addition of Paragraph (2). Therefore, this decision is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

○○ 4, 3, and 4, "Witness KimCC" are the "First Instance KimCC".

○ 6 pages 2 to 5 are as follows.

"Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the subject of the ownership of transactions, etc. in the instant workplace is not the Plaintiff, the nominal owner, but the actual operator, so the instant disposition taken on the premise that the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the business, operates the instant workplace shall be revoked illegally."

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's argument

The name lending of a business operator is an act promoting anti-social tax evasion, and even if the name lending is objectively apparent, legal stability and transaction safety, and sacrifice the taxpayer's good faith principle, it may be imposed on the actual business operator only when it is deemed necessary to protect the nominal lender. Even if the Plaintiff is the nominal lender, it is deemed that the Plaintiff will be responsible for all affairs related to the business, barring special circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff, the nominal titleholder, should be deemed the actual business operator, and the assertion of substance over form principle in the lawsuit in this case

B. Determination

Therefore, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who actually runs the instant place of business is not the Plaintiff, but KimCC. Accordingly, the global income tax for the year 2012 related to the instant place of business should be imposed on KimCC, and as alleged by the Defendant, only in exceptional cases may be imposed on the actual business operator, or the revocation of the instant disposition cannot be deemed as violating the principle of good faith solely on the grounds alleged by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.