Unlike business registration, the fact that the business operator is not an actual business operator can only be found to have been accurately examined, so it cannot be viewed that the disposition of imposition is void as a matter of course.

Even if the plaintiff is not the actual operator of the company, since the company is registered as a business under the name of the plaintiff, the tax authority is deemed to have an objective reason to mislead the plaintiff as a taxpayer, and the fact that the plaintiff is not the actual business operator unlike the business registration can only be clarified when investigating the facts accurately, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of imposition is null and void.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

2015Guhap24248

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

April 19, 2016

May 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Plaintiff, on March 7, 2013, value-added tax of 2,593,163 won (value-added tax of 2,561,65 won, additional tax of 31,508 won), value-added tax of 1,203 on June 12, 2013 (value-added tax of 50,000 won, additional tax of 11,700 won, additional tax of 1,700 won), value-added tax of 2,986,726 won (value-added tax of 8,77,533 won, additional tax of 109, 109, 109, 193 won), and of 36, 206, 263, 205, 264, 206, 265, 206, 263, 265, 265, 206, 264, 261, 26365, 264, 265, 263

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was registered as a business entity engaging in the transport business under the trade name of “CCC”, “DD”, and “EE” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each business entity of this case”).

on March 7, 2013 2,561,65 31,508

2. 500,000 11,700 decided June 12, 2013

3DD on March 7, 2013 8,877,533 109,193

4 June 5, 2013 2,256,58 6,092

5 EE on March 14, 2013 4,769,417 1,244,256

B. As the Defendant did not pay the value-added tax after filing a return on each of the instant enterprises from the second to the first period of 2012, the Defendant: (a) rendered a disposition to collect value-added tax and imposition of additional tax as listed in the table 2 below (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”; and (b) when referring to individual dispositions, “the instant disposition” according to the sequence 2 below is referred to as “the instant disposition”).

Details of collection disposition of value-added tax and imposition disposition of additional tax.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap Nos. 3, 5, 6, Eul No. 1, 2 (including paper numbers, below)

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff merely lent the name of the FF to the FF for business registration under its own name upon the FF’s request, and the actual operator of each of the instant businesses is not the Plaintiff but the FF, and each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff, who did not have any tax liability, is invalid as it violates the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and where it can be clarified only after an accurate investigation is conducted as to whether it is subject to taxation, the determination of whether it is subject to taxation cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002; 2011Du22723, Feb. 23, 2012). In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff is not the actual operator of each of the businesses in this case, even if the business in this case was registered under the name of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants, who are the tax authorities, have to investigate the Plaintiff’s business registration in the name of the Plaintiff, and thus, cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s imposition of additional tax.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.