Seocho 209west 1763 (Law No. 9.15, 2009)

Fact-finding on a nominal representative

Even if it is alleged that the workplace was transferred while operating the workplace, the actual operator of the workplace is presumed to be the plaintiff.

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

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first term of January 2, 2004 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2009, including KRW 4,593,350, value-added tax for the second term of February 2, 2004, KRW 7,960,630, value-added tax for the second term of February 2, 2005, KRW 29,819,060, and value-added tax for the first term of January 2, 2006, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. DoD is a representative in the name ofCC (the trade name of July 6, 2006 was changed to 'PP' and '4-1301' for the place of business as of July 6, 2006) that was opened on August 1, 1999 and AA6 of Seoul AAAgu submitted by 289-3 BB, which was engaged in the original wholesale business in the underground A-168, and the place of business was changed to 'PP' and 'A5 AA5' was changed to '4-1301'). Since the opening of business, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax for each taxable period in its name for each business year after 2006.

B. From August 4, 2008 to September 16, 2008, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation of the item of value-added tax on the said place of business, and conducted a tax investigation on the said place of business from 2004 to 2006, and confirmed that there was omission in processing sales and sales at the said place of business, and determined the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax newly for each taxable period and deducted the amount of the initial return from the amount of the final return. On January 2, 2009, the Defendant issued each disposition of value-added tax assessment and assessment corresponding to the increased portion for each taxable period (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff opened and operated the above place of business in the name of AD on August 1, 1999, and transferred the above place of business to AD on or around January 2004. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff was not the actual business operator of the above place of business during the taxable period corresponding to each disposition of this case.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 1, 199, the Plaintiff registered its business under the name of EDR, the Plaintiff’s birth, and operated the original wholesale business at the instant place of business.

(2) The result of the investigation conducted by the Defendant against the transaction partners in the course of carrying out the tax investigation is as follows.

(A) From September 3, 2005 to December 21, 2005, the representative response of the FF parent stock company, which was traded withCC distribution, is the Plaintiff’s business operator, and this is the director of the division. The GG Star’s representative, who is the GG Star’s representative, stated that D is aware of the director. However, it is unaware of who is the representative ofCC distribution, and D is aware of the director of the division.

(B) The former HH, who had worked in theCC distribution from 2004 to 2005, stated that this D is the director of the division, and the actual business operator of the said workplace is the Plaintiff.

(C) AD, around May 2002, worked at the above workplace and received 1.2 million won a monthly wage. From October 2003, 2003, 2.0 million won was paid in 200,000 won a total of 204 and 2006, and 1.2 million won was paid in 200,000 won, and CC’s actual business operator stated as Plaintiff.

(3) The sales and purchase fund of theCC distribution was traded through the account in the name of ED in the name of the business owner. From October 15, 2003 to February 10, 2006, KRW 161,701,50 was remitted to the account of SongK, the Plaintiff’s spouse, through 43 times in total, and KRW 90,730,000 was deposited from the said account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 7, 10, Eul evidence, 5, 6, 8, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In addition to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff registered the business in the name of Lee Jae-su, a living in the same household on August 1, 1999 and operated the instant place of business. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that even though the Plaintiff asserted that he transferred the said place of business to Lee Dong-chul around January 2004, the actual operator of the said place of business is presumed to be the Plaintiff during the instant taxable period.

Therefore, since the disposition of this case by the defendant to the same purport is legitimate, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground of illegality of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.