propriety of the assertion that the business is merely a nominal business operator and is not a real business operator

The disposition such as special consumption tax imposed on the plaintiff is legitimate because the plaintiff who is not the business owner is deemed to operate the place of business substantially.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per

[Seoul High Court 2007Nu551 (Law No. 19, 2007)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of each of the special consumption tax of 71,093,230 won for the plaintiff on November 14, 2003, 191,400 won for business income tax of 1998, 24,200 won for earned income tax of 198, and value-added tax of 7,545,190 won for the first year of 198 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasons for this case are as follows: 2nd 9th 2nd 9th 2nd 2nd 2000th 2nd 6th 200th 15th ; 2nd 1th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2000th 11th 3rd 4th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 8th 5th 5th 198th 5th 5th 198th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 198.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2005Guhap28195, Nov. 22, 2006]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 71,093,230 of special consumption tax against the Plaintiff on November 14, 2003, KRW 191,40 of business income tax for the year 1998, KRW 24,200 of earned income tax, and KRW 7,545,190 of value-added tax for the year 198 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant imposed the special consumption tax, etc., from March 3, 1998 to August 1998, 198, on ○○○○○○○○○, which is the business owner of the special consumption tax, etc., from the trade name of the place of business (hereinafter “instant place of business”), on ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○, who is the business owner of the business.

B. On June 29, 2000, ○○○ and ○○○ filed a complaint with the Defendant on June 29, 2000 against the Plaintiff, who is the actual business owner of the instant workplace, and they are their nominal holders. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that whether the decision was revoked is in progress, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.

C. Relevant litigation was rendered by the judgment of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim for the consent of ○○ Joint Liability Company in the case where ○○○ Joint Liability Company, which supplied alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 42,625,802 at the instant place of business, filed a claim with the Plaintiff on the ground that the actual business operator of the instant place of business was the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Ga24065 delivered on August 22, 2001), but the judgment of the court of first instance to revoke the judgment of the court of first instance in the second instance and to accept the claim for the consent of ○○○○ Joint Liability Company (Seoul District Court Decision 2001Na60285 delivered on April 8, 2003). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da25362 delivered on August 22, 2003).

D. In accordance with the purport of the judgment on confirmation of related litigation, the Defendant revoked the special consumption tax, etc. imposed on ○○ and ○○○○ by deeming the actual business owner of the instant business as the Plaintiff, and imposed the Plaintiff the special consumption tax of KRW 71,093,230 in relation to the instant business establishment on November 14, 2003, KRW 191,40 in business income tax of KRW 191,40 in relation to the instant business establishment, KRW 24,200 in business income tax of KRW 198, KRW 7,545,190 in business income tax of KRW 198

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 32, Evidence No. 1-6, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 4-1, 4-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the actual business operator of the instant place of business is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff is a business registration titleholder, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff paid KRW 33,806,00 as lease deposit to ○○, a stock company, the owner of the building of ○○○○○○○, along with Na○○ and Gab○○○○, and leased the part of ○○○○○, a type of the Plaintiff’s death. On March 1, 1990, the Plaintiff registered the business under the name of ○○ and Gab○○○○○, and started the business of the instant workplace.

(2) On November 1, 1997, the Plaintiff, while running a business of this case after closing and repairing the business of this case, concluded a new business agreement under which the previous rights shall be kept as they are and distributed at the rate of 60:40,00 among profits. On November 13, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a new business agreement under which the former rights shall be distributed at the rate of 60:40,00 among profits. On November 13, 1997, the Plaintiff, while making a new business registration, was registered on the ground that the Plaintiff was registered on

(3) On the other hand, on March 2, 1998, the Plaintiff changed the name of the business registration to ○○○○, a kind of friendly arrest with the head of ○○○○○○ and the head of ○○○○○○ and the head of ○○○ in charge of accounting frequently reported the current status, etc. of the business and funds, which is called the president, the Plaintiff operated the instant business by receiving a daily report on the business status through facsimile (FAX) installed at the Plaintiff’s home separately.

(4) At around May 6, 1998, the Plaintiff asked that ○○ take over the instant place of business by searching for the assignee.

(5) On June 23, 1998, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the ○○○ representative director, a lessor of the building of the ○○○○○○○○○○, to the effect that he would cut off and cut off the ○○○○○○ on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of rent and public charges for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a lessor of the building of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on July 10, 1998, he sent a letter to the said ○○○○○○○○○ on the ground that he would have carried out the ○○○○○○○’s management in his name. Therefore, it also

(6) On July 10, 1998, Park Jong-○, who decided to acquire the Plaintiff’s share in the instant business establishment from Jinjin-○, entrusted by the Plaintiff, prepared a custody certificate stating that 333,000,000 won of the lease deposit at ○○○○ Center will be paid to the Plaintiff by December 31, 1998 (No. 7-2).

(7) On August 28, 1998, ○○, a lessee under a lease agreement, deposited KRW 58,750,406 remaining after deducting overdue rent, etc. out of KRW 333,086,00,00, when cancelling a lease agreement on the building of ○○○○○ Center on the ground that the rent was overdue from February 1998 and sub-leaseed without his/her consent.

(8) The instant place of business closed on August 31, 1998.

(9) The Plaintiff did not recover the Plaintiff’s share out of the deposit for lease at the instant workplace until now.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 through 6, evidence No. 7-1, evidence No. 8, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 22, evidence No. 36-4, evidence No. 39-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4-5, evidence No. 5, Eul No. 6, evidence No. 7-2, 8, Eul evidence No. 9, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 14, evidence No. 16, evidence No. 17-1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

[Evidence Evidence] Evidence No. 10, evidence No. 13-1, evidence No. 14-2, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 23, evidence No. 24-1, evidence No. 26, evidence No. 27-1, 2, evidence No. 31-1, evidence No. 33-1, evidence No. 35, evidence No. 36-8, witness No. 136-8, witness No. 20, and testimony by Kim○.

[Insufficient Evidence] Evidence No. 16-1 to 4, evidence No. 17-1 to 17-4, evidence No. 18, evidence No. 19, evidence No. 20, evidence No. 25, evidence No. 27-3, 4, evidence No. 28-1, 28-2, evidence No. 29-1 through 11, evidence No. 30, evidence No. 33-2, evidence No. 34, evidence No. 36-6, 7, evidence No. 37, evidence No. 38-1, 2, evidence No. 40, evidence No. 41, evidence No. 42, evidence No. 43-1, 2, 34-1, and evidence No. 46.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff actually operated the instant workplace through Jin○○○, and Jin○○ was merely a manager who lends his/her name of business registration due to the affinity relationship of the Plaintiff, which is the Plaintiff’s agent, and managed the funds and operation of the instant workplace.

6. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc. had no real share of KRW 100,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s 197. The Plaintiff had no real share of the building at the instant place of business, and had no real share of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was paid to the Plaintiff as security. 6. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ had no real share of the building at the instant place of business, and had no real share of KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.