logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017. 09. 20. 선고 2016구합67890 판결
명의대여자에 불과한 원고에게 납세의무가 있다고 본 하자가 있다고 하더라도 그 하자가 외관상 명백하다고 볼 수 없음[국승]
Title

Even if there is any defect in deeming that the Plaintiff, only the nominal lender, has the liability to pay taxes, such defect cannot be deemed apparent in appearance.

Summary

In the instant disposition, even if there is a defect in deeming that the Plaintiff, who is only the nominal lender of the business, was liable to pay taxes, as alleged by the Plaintiff, such defect cannot be deemed apparent.

Related statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

2016Guhap67890 Confirmation of invalidity of a tax imposition disposition

Plaintiff

Park ○

Defendant

○ Head of tax office

Conclusion of Pleadings

2017.09.06

Imposition of Judgment

2017.20

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant confirmed that each imposition of the value-added tax (including the additional tax), each global income tax (including the additional tax), each special consumption tax (including the additional tax, education tax/defense tax), and each business income tax (including the additional tax) on the plaintiff is invalid.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a person registered as a business operator (hereinafter referred to as the "place of business of this case") with respect to entertainment tavern business between "Kks," which is located in the place of business****Gu************, with respect to entertainment tavern business from October 10, 200, which is the opening day of the business to July 30, 201, which is the closing day of business (hereinafter referred to as the "place of business of this case").

B. During the period from April 2, 2001 to January 2, 2004, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff the value-added tax, global income tax, special consumption tax, business income tax, etc. on the instant workplace including additional tax as stated in the attached tax assessment list (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 19, 2016, but the said appeal was dismissed on June 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 to 15, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case taken against the plaintiff who is not the actual business operator of the "KSS" because the plaintiff lent the name of the business operator upon the request of both AA and was not involved in the operation of the "KSS" is significant and clear.

B. Determination

Generally, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any factual relation, income or act, etc., which is subject to taxation, shall be deemed to be significant and apparent, but in case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or fact which is not subject to taxation, if it is apparent whether it is subject to taxation or not, and if it can only be clarified in a correct manner, it cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation is void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4

In this case, the fact that the plaintiff issued a seal imprint certificate to both A and registered the business of this case in the name of the plaintiff can only be clarified only when the tax authority should accurately investigate the facts, such as whether the plaintiff lent the name of the business operator to both A and whether or not the plaintiff lent the name of the business operator. Thus, even if there is a defect that the plaintiff merely nominally owns the name of the business operator, as alleged by the plaintiff in the disposition of this case, it cannot be seen that the defect is apparent. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow