Gwangju District Court 201Guhap280 ( November 10, 2011)

early 2009 Mine2743 ( November 03, 2010)

It is insufficient to recognize that part of the amount of the Defendant’s sales is the Plaintiff’s owner.

There is a burden of proof to the claimant that there is only the nominal attribution of income and there is a person who actually obtains the income. However, some of the amount determined by the defendant as the plaintiff's sale is insufficient to recognize that the person to whom the income belongs is the plaintiff only by the evidence submitted.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Nu1992. Revocation of disposition of imposition of value-added tax on an item and nullification thereof

Ma XX

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office and one other

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011Guhap280 Decided November 10, 2011

August 16, 2012

August 30, 2012

1. The part against the plaintiff falling under any of the following subparagraphs among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The imposition of more than 00 won of the imposition of value-added tax on July 1, 2009 by the head of the defendant Gwangju District Tax Office for the plaintiff on July 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the director of the tax office of North Korea and the remaining appeal against the director of the tax office of Gwangju metropolitan shall be dismissed, respectively.

3. The plaintiff's appeal costs against the defendant North Gwangju District Tax Office shall be borne by the plaintiff, 9/10 of the total litigation costs between the plaintiff and the defendant Gwangju District Tax Office, and the remainder by the defendant Gwangju District Tax Office.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition imposing each value-added tax on the Plaintiff as listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "the defendant is the head of the tax office of North Korea's jurisdiction" of the first instance court Nos. 47 and 5; "the defendant is the head of the tax office of North Korea's jurisdiction" of the fourth and fourth 8; "the head of the tax office of the defendant Gwangju" of the fourth 7; "the head of the tax office" of the third 7; "the head of the district tax office" of the third 7; "the head of the district tax office" of the third 6; "the head of the district tax office of Gwangju" of the third 7; "the head of the district tax office" of the "related" of the 8th 6th 6th 205 ; and "the sales omitted amount of the second 2nd 2005 Ga caused the new A" of the second 9 7th 205 ; and therefore, the part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2)

2. Parts to be dried;

(B) Whether the omission in the sale for the second term of 2005 caused the occurrence of the newA

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “If the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income actually belongs shall be liable to pay taxes.” However, as above, the fact that the ownership of income is merely nominal and it is a person to whom such income actually accrues, has the burden of proof to the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984

2) In full view of the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-3, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 12-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 12-2, and the fact-finding results and the whole purport of the arguments in this Court against Eul Co., Ltd., Ltd., P, OO, and Yuu Seocho branch, among the dispositions of this case No. 2, the imposition of value-added tax on the amount of 200 won supplied under the name of the plaintiff and 000 won of value-added tax on the amount of 00 won supplied under the name of the new account No. 300 of value-added tax on the amount of 00 won and the amount of 00 won supplied under the name of new account No. 50 of the plaintiff No. 2, separately from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim for the sale of the game items with the business registration No. 60 of the new account No. 300 of the plaintiff No.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the part of the Disposition No. 2, which was imposed in excess of KRW 000 among the Disposition No. 2, 2005, should be revoked illegally. The Reasons for Disposition No. 1, and the remaining Disposition No. 2 and No. 3, are all legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking the cancellation of the L/C disposition of this case is unlawful and dismissed. Among the disposition of this case No. 2, the part seeking the cancellation of the part imposing more than 000 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2005 among the disposition of this case shall be accepted, and the remaining part shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff which partly different conclusions in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against this part shall be accepted, and the remaining part shall be justified, and the plaintiff's appeal against this part shall be dismissed.