Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap9096 ( October 30, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Income 2010-015 ( October 17, 2011)

It is difficult to regard the name holder as the name holder, and the report of global income tax can not be regarded as the void as the void.

(1) It is difficult to deem that only the name of a business operator of the Housing Construction and Sales Business was lent, and even if only the name of business operator was lent, it cannot be deemed that the act of reporting global income tax is void as a result of significant and apparent defects.

2011Nu2529 global income and revocation of disposition

XX

Director of the District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap9096 decided June 30, 2011

December 7, 2011

January 18, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The collection disposition of KRW 20,210,680 against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2010 shall be revoked.

This court's decision is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court's decision, except where the defendant's "defendants" in the fifth 8, nine 8, and nine years of the first instance court's decision is "Gla". Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful because the court of this case also lent only the name of the business operator to KimA, and it did not receive any business income since it did not actually operate the above place of business.

However, even if this court added each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 39 through 41 (including the serial number) newly submitted in this court, considering the fact that it is difficult for the plaintiff to regard the plaintiff as a title holder of registration in the form of the workplace of this case, and even if not, the evidence alone, presented by the plaintiff, alone, is insufficient to deem the act of declaration of this case as invalid as a matter of course due to significant and obvious defects, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case ordering the payment of the tax amount finalized by the act of declaration

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.