early 2010 Heavy2869 ( October 23, 2011)

The plaintiff is a person to whom the rent income of the store of this case actually belongs.

It is recognized that the Plaintiff received a loan each month by completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the store of this case under the name of the Dong's wife as a credit bad relationship with the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff disbursed the purchase fund, the interior construction cost, etc., and leased the store of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the person to whom the rent income of the store of this case actually belongs.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

The AA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

July 12, 2012

August 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010, the sum of each value-added tax of KRW 100 from 2006 to 1st 2008, which was imposed by the Plaintiff, is revoked (for example, “the statement in the complaint on February 4, 2010,” is apparent that it is a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 22, 2003, the rightB completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the store Nos. 1 and 8 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) out of the 461 OOO department store in Busan-si, OOO-dong 461 OO department store in Busan-si (hereinafter referred to as “O department store in this case”) and reported and paid the value-added tax on the rental income of the instant store from the first to the first year in 2006.

B. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing value added tax of KRW 00,000 for the first term portion in 2006, KRW 000 for the second term portion in 2006, KRW 000 for the second term in 2007, and KRW 000 for the second term in 2007, and KRW 000 for the first term portion in 2008.

C. On August 24, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 23, 2011.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 22, and Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not have title trust the instant store with the rightB, and the Plaintiff’s her dong and the husband of the rightB entrusted the instant store to the rightB as the actual owner of the instant store, and the Plaintiff was only in charge of the instant store with the delegation from theCC, but the instant disposition of taxation based on the premise that the Plaintiff obtained the lease income of the instant store, which is unlawful, is contrary to the substance over form principle.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that when the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment and Article 2(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that the person to whom the value-added tax belongs is the person who supplies goods or services independently for business regardless of whether it is for profit making.

In full view of the above evidence, Gap 3, Eul 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 20, 24, 27, and 4, and 5 evidence, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: (i) the plaintiff purchased the instant store from Docococoin around January 2003; (ii) the plaintiff was not able to obtain a loan from a financial institution under the name of DocoB, which is the wife of CC; (iii) the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a loan from a financial institution under the name of DocoB; and (iv) the Doco has completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant store on January 22, 2003; (v) the plaintiff was paid loans from Docoin; and (v) the plaintiff was able to obtain a loan from Docoin; and (v) the plaintiff was able to obtain a loan from Docoin; and (v) the plaintiff was able to obtain a loan from Doco; and (v. 20.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.