The disposition of imposition and seizure of a nominal lender shall not be deemed to be void as a matter of course.

Even if the Plaintiff is only a business title truster, the disposition imposing value-added tax based on the business registration under the Plaintiff’s name, the report of value-added tax, etc., and the disposition of seizure following default shall not be deemed to be apparent that the defect is apparent, and thus, it shall not be deemed to constitute an invalidation

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

2011Guhap1836 Nullification of a taxation disposition

XX Kim

the director of the tax office of Western

October 20, 2011

December 1, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

It is confirmed that each taxation disposition and seizure disposition in the separate sheet attached to the Defendant against the Plaintiff are invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 1, 1998 to October 26, 2000, the Plaintiff is registered as a business entity engaging in the manufacturing of building materials under the trade name of 00-1, Seo-gu Incheon Western-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. The Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff for the first term or second term of 1999 to 2000 on the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax after filing a return of the first to 2000 taxable periods of the second term value-added tax, or notification of the taxation data due to omission of sales, etc., as shown in attached Table 1 through 8, and seized the Plaintiff’s Free Savings Deposit Account (Account Number 48102-56-0000), which was the Plaintiff’s name on June 10, 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pay the said value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition” in addition to the disposition imposing value-added tax and the seizure disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not operate the instant place of business, and in fact, the Plaintiff, the former husband of the Plaintiff, operated the instant place of business by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation, and its defect is serious and obvious.

B. Relevant statutes

Terms and Conditions of Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and a third person to whom it belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom it actually belongs as a taxpayer.

C. Determination

(1) In light of the substance over form principle, if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the person to whom it actually belongs (Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, a person who asserts that the ownership of the transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun. 26,

(2) According to Gap evidence No. 3 and witness B testimony, since it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's husband had worked as a fixed-term teacher for a considerable period of time among the operation of the business of this case, such as Y elementary school from May 4, 1999 to July 4, 199 and YB, the plaintiff's husband had obtained resident registration certificates and seals from the plaintiff, and actually operated the business of this case from November 1, 1998 to Oct. 26, 200. The plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff had not been issued the plaintiff's resident registration certificates and the part of this case's business of this case to Y elementary school from May 1, 199 to 199, and that the plaintiff was working as a temporary teacher for a considerable period of time among the operation of the business of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's actual operation of the business of this case, such as the plaintiff's husband, and the plaintiff did not appear to have borrowed the plaintiff's resident registration certificates and the part of this case's domicile.

(3) However, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have the factual basis of the legal relation, income, or act that is subject to taxation is significant and apparent, but where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to be subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual basis that is not subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition that misleads the person subject to taxation of the fact subject to taxation cannot be deemed to be void as a matter of course, even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the legal purpose of the act subject to taxation is apparent, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax disposition that misleads the person subject to taxation of the fact subject to taxation cannot be deemed to be void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). Further, as a matter of principle, such type of tax is determined specifically by the taxpayer’s act of notifying the tax base and amount of tax by itself, barring any error in the law itself, it cannot be deemed that a collection disposition ordering payment of the amount of tax becomes void.

(4) According to such legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged based on the health stand, the evidence mentioned earlier, and the evidence stated in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as to the instant case: (i) the Plaintiff merely lent the name of the business operator, and the Plaintiff did not operate the instant place of business as the business operator was merely a business operator, and the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not operate the instant place of business can only be clarified. (ii) The Plaintiff reported the value-added tax and the global income tax in the Plaintiff’s name during the period of operation of the instant place of business, and the reported act itself did not have any apparent defect, even if the Plaintiff is merely a business operator, it is difficult to deem that the disposition imposing value-added tax and the disposition imposing the delinquent tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s name based on the registration of business and the report of the value-added tax, etc. on the Plaintiff’s business operator’s name as the business operator of the instant place

3. Conclusion

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