Jeonju District Court 2008Guhap492 (Law No. 20091.08)

A propriety of a disposition imposing value-added tax on a business entity;

The disposition imposing value-added tax on the plaintiff is legitimate in view of the fact that the plaintiff was employed independently by employing the store staff, and the fund management and tax return were processed under its independent judgment, and that a certain amount of monthly sales have been paid to the store acquirer.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On April 10, 2007, the defendant shall be revoked the imposition of value-added tax of 171 minute12,53,720, 2003, 14,015, 780, 2004, 171 minute18,669, 230, 204, 2004, 740, 171 minute12,578, 960, 205, 14,024, 950, 2006, 11, 146, and 280 won (hereinafter referred to as the imposition disposition of these cases).

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

이 사건의 쟁점은, 원고가 이 사건 ▣▣▣ 피자 매장의 사업주가 아니고 실제 사업 주인 노○○에게 사업자명의를 빌려준 관리인에 불과함에도, 피고가 실제 사업주가 아 난 원고에게 부가가치세를 부과한 이 사건 각 부과처분이 실질과세의 원칙에 위반되어 위법한지 여부이다.

The first island is deemed to have prepared a certificate of the purport that ○○○ is the actual right holder of the store after investing in its own money and acquiring the store of this case. In light of all the circumstances such as the operation and fund management form of the store of this case after the preparation of the above certificate, the purport of the letter of confirmation is not to clarify that ○○○ is the actual right holder of the store of this case, but to provide the Plaintiff with physical rights or investment principal as to the store of this case and to prevent the Plaintiff from operating the store of this case or providing it as security. Further, the e-mail exchanged between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ is merely an indirect taxpayer of the tax payment for the purpose of increasing ○○○○’s investment profit rather than for participating in the operation of the store of this case. In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to consider the Plaintiff’s tax liability and the Plaintiff’s additional tax liability to pay for the remaining amount equivalent to the sales revenue of this case without independent evidence of the Plaintiff’s investment principal or the Plaintiff’s tax liability for the remaining amount of the sales revenue of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the reasons for the judgment of this court are the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

If so, the first instance judgment is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as identical to the order.