Busan District Court-2014 Guhap-20033 ( April 24, 2015)

It is reasonable to impose tax on the actual reversion of the shopping mall income of this case.

It is insufficient to view that the substance of transactions using business registration, etc. belongs to the Plaintiff, the nominal owner, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu21315 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

on October 2015 09

October 21, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim

Defendant’s global income tax amounting to 00,000,000,000 for the year 2012, imposed on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013

The imposition disposition shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation

The court of first instance in regard to the part of the "additional charges and increased additional charges" included in the above claim

This part of the appeal is dismissed, and this part of the appeal is not filed by the plaintiff.

(except for the subject)

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is "the third 2013."

"2012." The same page 12 of the same page is listed as "Internet", and the defendant in the trial.

The judgment of the court of first instance other than adding a new determination as to the argument as described in paragraph (2) below.

As such, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, an objection is filed.

cite the same as it is.

2. Determination on new arguments made by the Defendant in the trial room

A. Summary of the argument

Even if the Plaintiff is not the actual business owner of “BB PP”, the Plaintiff, while fully aware that the Plaintiff was to use his name in the business rather than merely lending his name to the actual business owner, provided the Plaintiff’s name to the bank account, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff necessary for the business. Such an act constitutes an active act of distribution that prevents the Defendant from determining the actual taxpayer, and thus, the Plaintiff’s dispute over the disposition of global income tax of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith.

B. Determination

1) The application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law that strongly acts on the basis of the principle of legality under the principle of no taxation without law is only applicable to cases where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the person liable for tax payment has made a sacrifice of the principle of trust and good faith. In particular, in cases where the person liable for tax payment commits an act contrary to his past speech and behavior against the tax authority, he shall be subject to deprivation of benefits, such as tax reduction and exemption under tax law, various additional taxes, penalties under tax law, etc., and the tax authority shall have the right to on-site investigation as a superior position against the taxpayer, and the burden of proving the legality of the tax disposition is in principle against the tax authority, the application of the principle of trust and good faith to the taxpayer shall be extremely limited, and shall not be expanded and interpreted. In order for the taxpayer to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the taxpayer, the behavior was based on an objectively contradictory act of taxpayer, and it should be worth protecting the trust of the tax authority arising therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du28787).

2) We examine the above facts and circumstances in light of the above legal principles. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of arguments, i.e., (i) lending a business operator’s name to enable the Plaintiff to conduct electronic commerce on the Internet and providing a bank account, etc. necessary for the Plaintiff’s use of electronic commerce on the Internet; (ii) the Plaintiff appears not to have been directly involved in the business; and (iii) the Plaintiff merely lent its name for the purpose of receiving compensation for the name lending; and (iv) the Plaintiff does not appear to have been having the purpose of tax avoidance; and (iii) there are no circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff made a false statement after being investigated in relevant criminal cases for tax avoidance or that the Plaintiff was unable to exercise the tax and the right of tax imposition by interfering with the Defendant’s right of on-site investigation, on the ground that the Plaintiff is a mere nominal lender, cannot be deemed to constitute an act of good faith to the extent that it violates the good faith principle.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.