The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is unlawful because it is merely the nominal owner in its business registration.

The necessity of proof as to whether a person has a title shall be sufficient to the extent that the judge has a considerable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirements. Since the plaintiff has received a monthly salary as an employee and has performed the business of managing the office, it is recognized that the plaintiff is merely a person to whom the name belongs.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap2350 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ ○

Daejeon director of the tax office

May 28, 2014

July 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. On May 31, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting an application for rectification regarding each value-added tax listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which was filed against the Plaintiff, is revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, the defendant seeks confirmation of the invalidity of a claim for correction against each value-added tax listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto, and seek revocation of the disposition in the preliminary case.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The status and relationship of the parties

The plaintiff is a person registered as a human resources supplier in Daejeon ○○-dong 11-37, Daejeon.

B. Value added tax return and Defendant’s notice

1) On April 25, 2009, on the Plaintiff’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2009, and on July 25, 2009, the amount of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax was declared respectively by the Defendant.

2) If the Plaintiff did not pay the above value-added tax, the Defendant imposed and collected a notice on the Plaintiff on the total sum of the scheduled first period portion, the fixed amount of the value-added tax, and the additional tax in good faith for payment thereof in 2009 (attached Form 1; hereinafter referred to as “instant value-added tax”).

(c) Filing civil petitions for grievances and non-adopted notification;

On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance (hereinafter referred to as “instant civil petition for grievance”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff is merely a nominal name holder of ○○tech and the lowestA is a actual business operator,” and on May 31, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision not to accept the said civil petition (hereinafter referred to as “the instant decision of refusal”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff as a substantial representative of ○○tech.”

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

On August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant decision of refusal and filed a request for a trial with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 29, 2012, and the said case was transferred to the Tax Tribunal on September 13, 2012. On April 19, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the claim related to the value-added tax of the first quarter of the value-added tax of the instant case on the ground that the period for filing a request for correction expires, and rendered a decision to dismiss the remainder of the claim.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap No. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A civil petition for grievance is a system not admitted to tax laws, and the decision of this case that the plaintiff rejected the civil petition for grievance of this case filed without legal basis does not constitute a rejection disposition that is the subject of

Even if the above civil petition for grievance is considered as a practical claim for correction stipulated in Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the civil petition for grievance of this case pertaining to the value-added tax for the first term portion of the Value-Added Tax for the first term in 2009 was filed on April 25, 2009, which is the statutory deadline for filing the claim for correction from April 25, 2009, which is the statutory deadline for filing the value-added tax for the first term portion of the Value-Added Tax for the first term in 209, and it does not meet the requirements for filing the claim for correction. Thus, the instant

(b) Related statutes;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 45-2 (Request for Correction, etc.)

(1) In any of the following cases, a person who has filed a return on a tax base by the statutory due date of return may request the head of the competent tax office within three years after the statutory due date of return elapses to determine or correct the tax base and amount of the national tax for which the initial return and revised return have been filed: Provided, That with respect to the increased tax base and amount of tax due to the determination or correction, a request for correction may be made within 90 days (limited to within three years after the statutory due date of return expires) from the date he/

1. Where the tax base and amount of tax on a return of tax base (referring to the tax base and amount of tax after determination or correction is made, if such determination or correction is made pursuant to the tax-related Acts), exceed those to be reported under the tax-related Acts;

【Enforcement Decree of Framework Act on National Taxes

When a person intends to request a decision or revision pursuant to Article 45-3 (1), (2) and (4) of the Act, he/she shall submit (including a submission via the national tax information and communications network) a written request for decision or revision stating the following matters:

1. Name, and domicile or temporary domicile of the applicant;

2. The tax base and amount of tax before the decision or correction;

3. The tax base and amount of tax after the decision or correction;

4. Grounds for requesting a decision or revision;

5. Other necessary matters.

【Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A request for determination or correction under Article 25-2 (Request for Correction, etc.) of the Decree shall be made in an application for determination (revision) of the tax base and amount of tax in attached Form 16-2, accompanied by a copy of the initial tax base and amount of tax return, and documents proving objectively the grounds for filing a request for correction.

(s) Attached Form 2 shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) First, we examine whether the instant civil petition for grievance can be seen as a claim for correction.

Article 25-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes requires a person who intends to make a request for correction to submit a written request stating the name, address, tax base and amount of tax before correction, tax base and amount of tax after correction, tax base and amount of tax after correction, grounds for filing a request for correction, etc. The attached Form 12-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes determines the form of the written request. However, in light of the fact that the system for filing a request for correction is a system to guarantee taxpayer's rights, and that Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not provide for the specific method of filing a request for correction, it does not require a strict form in the relevant request for correction. Thus, even if the name and form are different, if it is evident

It is reasonable to view the claim as a claim (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu540, Oct. 28, 1986).

In this case, as seen earlier, it includes the content that "the plaintiff is merely the nominal lender and the lowest AA is the actual business operator," the taxpayer of the value-added tax of this case is the lowestA. Accordingly, the civil petition for grievance of this case includes all substantial contents for correction, such as the name and address of the petitioner, the tax base and amount before correction, the tax base and amount after correction, the tax base and amount after correction, and the reason for filing a request for correction, as stipulated in Article 25-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the instant civil petition for grievance is a claim for correction, and the instant decision to not accept it is subject to appeal litigation as a rejection disposition against it.

2) We examine whether the following period for filing a request for correction expires. According to Articles 48(1) and 49(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, an entrepreneur shall file a return with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment of the tax base and the amount of tax payable or the amount of tax payable for each preliminary return period as prescribed by Presidential Decree within 25 days after the period for filing a preliminary return (from January 1 to March 31, and from July 1 to September 30) expires during each taxable period, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and file a return with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment of the tax base and the amount of tax payable or the amount of tax refundable for each preliminary return period (from January 1 to June 30, and from July 1 to December 31, 200), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, on the tax base and the amount of tax payable or the amount of tax refundable for each preliminary return period.

In full view of the statutory provisions on the preliminary return, final return, and request for correction of value-added tax, if there are omissions in the details of the preliminary return, the return may be filed at the time of filing the final return, and the tax base and tax amount reported at the preliminary return shall be settled finally by the final return. Therefore, the period of filing a request for correction of the tax base and tax amount

Therefore, the starting point of calculating a claim for correction concerning the period of the first preliminary return in 2009 is July 25, 2009, which is the date of the final return of the first preliminary return of the year 2009. Therefore, this part of the civil petition for grievance filed before the lapse of three years from the

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is the actual business owner of the ○○tech and the plaintiff is merely the nominal lender, and therefore the value-added tax in this case should be imposed on the MaximumA under the substance over form principle. The defendant's decision of refusal in this case against the plaintiff's civil petition for grievance in this case is in fact illegal, and the defendant's decision of refusal in this case is in fact illegal as a rejection disposition against the correction claim under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and seek confirmation as to the invalidity of

4. Determination as to a claim for confirmation of a State invalidation

(a) Relevant legal principles;

In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts that are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation by accurately investigating the relevant facts, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful taxation that misleads the fact of taxation requirements is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002; 201Du2723, Feb. 23, 2012).

Furthermore, the existence of a tax liability cannot be denied unless a tax liability becomes void as a result of significant and apparent defects, in a case where the so-called tax return method, which determines a tax liability by investigating and verifying whether the taxpayer satisfies the requirements for taxation, such as the value-added tax or the global income tax in this case, and by applying the relevant tax law, files a return of tax base and the amount of tax to determine a tax liability.

B. Determination

The name of the plaintiff was registered as the plaintiff, and the value-added tax was also reported in the name of the plaintiff.

Thus, it can be confirmed that the actual business owner is the actual business owner. The defendant, who is the tax authority, is an objective reason to judge the plaintiff as the taxpayer. Thus, even if the plaintiff is not the actual business owner of the ○tech, the disposition imposing value-added tax on the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part cannot be accepted.

5. Determination as to the claim for preliminary revocation

(a) Relevant legal principles;

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stating that “if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes.” Therefore, if there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages such income, profit, property, act, or transaction, unlike the nominal person to whom such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs, the nominal person shall not be the person to whom such income, profit, or appearance belongs, but the person who actually controls and manages the relevant taxable object pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person to whom such income, profit, or appearance belongs. In addition, the determination of whether it falls under such a case shall be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the circumstance

The tax authority shall, in principle, assume the burden of proof as to the existence and the tax base of the facts requiring taxation. This also applies to cases where the tax authority contests that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. and the actual 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. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge made reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirement. As a result, it is unclear whether the substance of the transaction, etc. belongs to the nominal owner, and if the judge becomes unable to have conviction, then the disadvantage therefrom is back to the tax authority bearing the ultimate burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du93

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff received the proposal from the LAA and decided to register the business of ○○tech in the name of the Plaintiff. On March 26, 2009, the Plaintiff visited the Daejeon Tax Affairs Civil Service Office to make a registration of the business of ○tech with a lease agreement to which the Plaintiff is the lessee.

2) From August 2009 to June 201, 2010, LA remitted money to the Plaintiff once to the Plaintiff via several occasions. Of these, the details of remitting money to 00,000 won in addition to the payment of benefits include the details of remitting money to 00,000 won in the name of the name.

3) With the Plaintiff’s consent, LA delegated the Plaintiff’s seal to the tax accountant and delegated the tax affairs such as preliminary return of value-added tax.

4) By December 2009, as the value-added tax imposed on ○○○tech was delinquent, the LA written loan certificate to the effect that “○○○○○○○,” around December 16, 2009, would be repaid to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2009, and that “the above amount was not repaid by December 11, 201,” and that “○○○○,000,000 won would be repaid by March 30, 201.”

5) On February 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the largestA on the charge of occupational embezzlement related to the sales price of the ○○○tech, fabrication of private documents related to the instant report on the payment of value-added tax, uttering of the said investigation document, and KimCC, the wife of the largestA, respectively, for the charge of occupational embezzlement. On August 31, 2011, the MinimumA was subject to a disposition to suspend prosecution due to unknown whereabouts, and KimCC was subject to a disposition to the effect that there was no suspicion for lack of evidence (Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office 2011 type No. 21517), and on February 16, 2012, the largestA was also subject to a disposition to the effect that there was no suspicion for lack of evidence (Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office 201 type No. 4369).

In the course of the investigation, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff and LA had operated the ○○tech as a partnership business, but failed to submit evidentiary materials. While the LA and LAC operated the ○○tech, the LA and LAC have paid 00,000 won to the Plaintiff each month for monthly fee of KRW 00,000 or KRW 000,000,000,000,000 an employee only for business registration, and the Plaintiff has been in charge of internal management, employment classification, interview, and accounting as an employee of the office. In addition, the referenceB was well aware that the LA had operated the ○○tech directly, and the Plaintiff was an employee of the ○○tech, and made a statement consistent with the allegations of the LAB.

5) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, who is the wife of the largestA, seeking the return of the sales price of the ○○tech ( recruitment commission). In the lawsuit above, KimCC asserted that “the Plaintiff is an employee, who is the name holder of the business, but only did not pay the value-added tax imposed in the name of the Plaintiff due to the aggravation of the financial standing of the Plaintiff,” and the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2011Na161536). The Plaintiff appealed against it, but the appeal was also dismissed (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Na9366), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 14, 2013.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 8, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of managing the office, etc. as an employee, and only the actual operator of the ○tech is A, and the Plaintiff can be acknowledged as having lent the name of the business operator in return for a prescribed amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the most AA, and the Plaintiff is merely the nominal owner, and the Plaintiff is merely the nominal owner, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s profit in accordance with the substance over form principle.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax stated in the attached list 1, which was conducted on the same premise, is unfair, and the defendant's decision of refusal of correction (decision of rejection of correction) of this case filed by the plaintiff is unlawful.

6. Conclusion

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