early 209west2502 ( October 08, 2009)

The legitimacy of the assertion that only the name was lent and that the business is not an actual operator

The nominal master-ranking person is convicted of the facts constituting the crime that he/she issued and received false tax invoices while practically operating the business by lending the name of the plaintiff, and the facts that he/she stated consistently in the investigation agency and court that he/she is the actual operator of the business, so the plaintiff's assertion has merit

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On December 8, 2008, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 9,001,80 for the first term of 2006, KRW 12,176,320 for the second term of 2006, KRW 49,725,490 for the first term of 207, KRW 28,547, KRW 370 for the first term of 207, and KRW 49,725, and KRW 030 for the first term of 207 by the head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Grounds for imposition;

A. From December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) was registered as a business operator operating lux wholesale and retail business in the name of ○○○○○-dong 498-55 (this refers to 931-10, May 17, 2006; and (b) again, on February 15, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○-dong ○○-dong 1562-102, 207, respectively, on December 31, 2007; (c) was registered as a business operator operating lux wholesale and retail business; (d) △△△△-dong 498-55, ○○-dong ○○-dong △△△△△△-dong △△△-dong △△-dong △△-dong △△△-dong △△△-dong △△△-dong △△-dong 1562-107, respectively.

B. However, on August 2008, the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office conducted an investigation of suspected facts on the Plaintiff’s transaction data from 2006 to 2007, and confirmed that the Plaintiff issued the above sales tax invoice without supplying goods or services and received the above purchase tax invoice, and then notified the Plaintiff of each of the disposition of global income tax and the disposition of global income tax (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”) on December 8, 2008, including the first period portion of value-added tax 1,001,800, 2006, 2006, 12,176,320, 206, 28, 370, 49, 725, 490, 207, and 46,56, 300, 2030, 208.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on February 25, 2009, but was dismissed on March 20, 2009, and again requested a judgment with the Tax Tribunal on June 17, 2009, but was dismissed on October 8, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

△△ Company’s actual operator is KimA, not the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff only lent his business name to KimA. Thus, it violates the principle of substantial taxation by making the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, which is only the nominal lender.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

According to the principle of substantial taxation, the confirmation of a taxpayer must be based on substance, not external appearance, so if the ownership of 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 should be the taxpayer (Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

In full view of the evidence Nos. 19 and 20 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.), the Plaintiff was convicted of having been issued and received false tax invoices in the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.) by a public prosecutor on September 9, 2010, on the premise that the Plaintiff was merely a person who lent the business name to KimA in relation to ○○○ Company. On November 26, 2010, on the premise that the Plaintiff was merely a person who used the business name in relation to the business name, and on the other hand, he was subject to a disposition that there was no suspicion in relation to the facts of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.) by borrowing the Plaintiff’s name in the name of ○○ District Court 2010Da283 on November 26, 2010.

The Defendant, upon filing an application for business registration, directly perused the electronic notification form sent from ○○○○○-dong 498-55301, which is the place of business of ○○○○○○○-dong 498-5301, and directly received the business registration certificate. The Plaintiff used the deposit passbook in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the transaction of ○○-dong 15,07. ② The Plaintiff transferred ○○○-dong 1562 to 207, ○○-dong 1562, and reported the change of the place to the same place. ③ The Plaintiff was a member of the National Tax Service’s computerized site, and the Plaintiff did not directly inspect the global income tax and the value-added tax, and the Plaintiff’s notification was given to the Plaintiff through the Internet e-mail and the mobile phone name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff presented a notice to the Plaintiff on Sep. 15, 2008.

However, even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff applied for a business registration certificate to the Plaintiff and changed his/her address, and the location of the place of business was changed along with the change of his/her address, and that he/she joined the National Tax Service Homeex and confirmed the imposition and default of each kind of tax and received electronic notification, such circumstances are merely merely limited to the name truster’s business index of the name truster who provided a little active cooperation among the general name trusters, and the Plaintiff cannot immediately conclude that he/she is the business entity of ○○ Company and the person to whom income accrued, solely on the basis of

Meanwhile, in the investigation related to the first disposition of this case, the Plaintiff made a partial statement to the effect that he/she jointly carried on the business of △△△△ in relation to the first disposition of this case, but the overall purport of the statement was that KimA actually carried on the business of this case, and thereafter, the investigation agency considered KimA as the sole operator of △△△△ commercial, and accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the actual operator of △△ commercial, on the sole basis of some initial statements.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.