The legitimacy of the assertion that the taxation disposition is void as a matter of course by lending the business registration name.

Even if a person is not a real business operator but a business operator who is a business operator, it is difficult to deem that the act of reporting and each disposition are invalid as it is not clear that the defect is apparent.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

○ ○

Head of Si Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant confirmed that the imposition of the total amount of KRW 124,731,200, and the total amount of KRW 124,731,200, and the total amount of the global income tax for the second term of 2002 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business registration holder of a place of business that has engaged in mechanical parts manufacturing business under the trade name of ○○○○○○○-dong 29-11 from September 25, 2002 until September 28, 2006, hereinafter “○○-dong 29-11” (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. As shown in attached Form 1, the Plaintiff’s business opening of the Plaintiff’s business was reported during the period from September 25, 2002, which was September 28, 2006, to September 28, 2006, which was the date of closure of the business.

C. However, as the above value-added tax and global income tax are not paid, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the unpaid or underpaid value-added tax and global income tax, such as the payable tax on the attached Table 2, in addition to the payable tax amount (hereinafter “instant notice”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 in the evidence No. 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

The Plaintiff only lent his name upon the request for the name transfer because it is impossible for the Plaintiff to register his business as a person with bad credit standing. Since the actual business operator of the instant workplace is a foreignA, the instant notification in violation of the substance over form principle is null and void as the defect is significant and apparent.

(b) Statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The disposition of the instant case’s notification

If a business operator filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax payable, but the tax authority imposed a tax payment notice by adding the amount of tax payable to the amount of tax payable, it is a combined disposition that orders the payment of the amount of value-added tax determined by a business operator’s return and the imposition and collection disposition of such additional tax (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu1313, Apr. 28, 1992). Accordingly, since the assessment base of value-added tax and global income tax and the amount of tax payable were declared from 2002 to 2006, but the said amount of tax payable has not been paid, the notice of this case where the Defendant issued a tax payment notice by adding the amount of tax payable to the amount of the returned tax is a combined disposition that orders the payment of the amount of value-added tax determined by the business operator’s return, the imposition of such additional tax, and the collection disposition of

(2) A person who has de facto reverted to the disposition of this case

According to the principle of substantial taxation, the confirmation of a taxpayer should be based on substance, not appearance, and if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer (Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, the fact that the ownership of the transaction subject to taxation is only nominal and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs.

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, and 9 (including each number), and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, this case's value-added tax and global income tax return was filed while running the business in the name of the plaintiff and issuing a tax invoice until the closure of the business in the name of the plaintiff, who was living together, after completing the business registration of the business in the name of the plaintiff and completing the business registration of the business in the name of the plaintiff. On the other hand, on May 23, 2000, the plaintiff joined Korea Warsaw Co., Ltd. located in △△△△△△△ △△△△△ 226-15, and retired on February 28, 2007. The BB (Personnel of the Accounting Office) in charge of accounting keeping accounts for the business in the instant case's name after completing the registration of the business in the instant case's name with the lease contract attached to the plaintiff's name, and it seems that the plaintiff actually operated the business in this case's name.

(3) Whether the instant disposition is void as a matter of course

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 a 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 can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation or not, it cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition, which misleads the fact of taxation, is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

In addition, income tax and value-added tax are taxes in the form of tax return, and in principle, as a matter of principle, the tax liability is determined by the taxpayer's act of setting tax base and amount of tax and filing a return specifically. Thus, unless the taxpayer's act of filing a return is void automatically due to grave and apparent defects or there is no illegality in the collection disposition itself, it cannot be deemed that a collection disposition ordering the

In full view of the above facts, the fact that the Plaintiff merely falls under the title holder of the business registration and did not supply goods or services at the place of business of this case as the actual business operator is merely a business operator, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not supply the goods or services at the place of business of this case can be found only after an accurate investigation into the facts. However, the income tax and value-added tax base and tax return of this case did not appear to have any defects in the report itself in the process of the Plaintiff’s tax agent, and there was no or any error in the report itself, and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the tax authority on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not the actual business operator of the place of this case after the disposition of this case or there was any defect in the report of this case. In full view of the above facts, even if the Plaintiff was merely the title holder of the business registration of this case, it cannot be deemed that the act of this case and each disposition of this case constitute the invalidity of the business registration. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.