There is sufficient room to suspect that the Plaintiff is only a person who lent the name of the business operator, and the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff as a real business operator.

As long as the tax authority considers the business title as the actual business title and imposed tax, it is necessary to assert and prove that the business title subject to the taxation disposition differs from the title and substance of the transaction, etc. In this case, the necessity of proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge has a reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirements.

Article 14 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018Guhap23741 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct value-added tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

April 17, 2019

May 15, 2019

1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on February 14, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 19, 2012 to December 31, 2017, the date of business closure, the Plaintiff is a person who registered his/her business in his/her trade name in order to engage in a manufacturing business, such as gold and parts processing, from ○○○, 000-0, Guro-si, Seoul, to December 31, 2017.

B. On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant value-added tax for the first period of 2017 at the instant workplace.

On September 7, 2017, the defendant reported the tax amount of KRW 0,000,000, but did not pay it.

C. Accordingly, on December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff’s actual business operator of the instant workplace to the Defendant is a stock company.

Since ○○○ Tech (hereinafter referred to as '○ Tech'), the said value-added tax is revised to 0 won.

I filed a claim for correction of the content.

D. However, on February 14, 2018, the Defendant confirmed on February 14, 2018 that “the Plaintiff is the nominal lender.”

For the reason that the relevant documents are incomplete, the above request for correction was rejected (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 30, 2018, but the appeal was dismissed on June 29 of the same year.

The whole of the statements, arguments, and arguments of Gap's 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), which have no ground for recognition;

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is merely registered as the representative of the instant workplace upon a request from an AAAA, a representative director, while serving as an employee of the ○○ Tech, and the actual operator of the instant workplace is ○○ Tech. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of substantial taxation, since the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay value-added tax on the instant workplace.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be the person liable for tax payment and the tax law shall

Therefore, the title and month in relation to income or profit, property, act or transaction, etc.

(1) If there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages the

(1) If the account holder is not the nominal owner, the account holder shall be the person liable for tax payment.

A person who controls and manages a taxable object shall be a person liable for tax payment.In addition, whether such case is applicable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the details of the use of name, the contents of the agreement between the parties, the degree and scope of the nominal owner's involvement, the relationship between internal responsibility and calculation, and the location

On the other hand, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence and the tax base of the taxation requirement. This also applies to a case where the tax authority contests that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. and the substantial owner of the transaction, etc. are different, barring special circumstances, such as a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, as long as the tax authority imposed tax on the nominal owner as the nominal owner of the business, it is necessary for the business owner to assert and prove that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. is different from the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. so long as the tax was imposed on him/her as the nominal owner is deemed the actual business owner. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge

If it comes to this, the disadvantage is back to the tax authority that bears the ultimate burden of proof.

Unlike this, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68 Decided June 26, 1984, which held that the responsibility to assert and prove that the real taxation is possible to a de facto entrepreneur who is not a business title holder, is limited to a person who contests the taxation of the nominal owner, is limited to Article 7 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) and its Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994).

The nominal owner taxation system stipulated in Article 21 shall enter into force before January 1, 1996.

As to income tax cases, this case cannot be invoked in other cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9935, May 16, 2014).

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or evidence A, No. 5, 7 through 12, No. 10, 11

Any entry of evidence and the whole purport of pleading may be recognized by integrating them.

1) From 000, ○○○, ○○○, a 000-ri, a gold-type and principal-type manufacturing business was closed on December 11, 2017. AA, a joint representative director, was between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. From January 11, 2011 to August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff was qualified as an employment provided policyholder for the health insurance of ○○○tech.

2) The instant place of business is located in the above ○○○○○ 000-0 divided from 000, where the instant place of business is located.

3) BB filed a complaint with the CC, a joint representative director of ○○○tech, at the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Kimcheon Branch Office, on wage delay (type 655). In the foregoing criminal case, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that “○○tech was under the investigation of a witness on August 17, 2017, and “the instant business establishment was operated by ○○○tech, including financial, personnel, and accounting management.” The instant business establishment and ○○tech were both mixed with the instant business establishment, and both employees, such as BB, etc. were working, and they were only employees who receive wages from ○○tech, and the account opened in the name of the instant business establishment was also managed in ○○○tech and did not have any fact that they used or managed directly.”

4) DDR, an employee of AA, CCC, and ○○tech, was registered as the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff prepared a confirmation statement stating that the Plaintiff is merely the nominal name holder and actually operating the instant place of business.

5) According to the details of the Plaintiff’s deposit and withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s deposit account, which was newly opened as of November 3, 2014, around 50 times from March 2015 to April 2017, if ○○tech deposited money into the said deposit account at least 50 times, the amount equivalent to the said deposit amount on the same day was deposited in a lump sum or divided account on the same day, and the amount of such deposit was mainly withdrawn from the date of entry into the said deposit account, and the amount of the deposit was mainly collected or withdrawn from AA, CCC, etc. under the name of various public charges and rents, such as wage, card payment, four-party insurance, value-added tax, and local tax.

D. Determination

In light of the above facts, there is sufficient room to suspect that the Plaintiff is only a person who lends the business name to the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff can operate the instant business establishment. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant business establishment belongs to the Plaintiff as the transaction of the instant business establishment, and there is no other evidence to reject the Plaintiff’s assertion and proof. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for correction on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual operator of

The rejection of the instant disposition is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.