The legitimacy of the assertion that it is an actual sole business place, although it was registered as a joint business place.

It is reasonable to view that a joint business proprietor is a simple investment, but it is reasonable to regard the fact that a business contract and a joint business proprietor are registered.

Article 8 of the Special Consumption Tax Act (Tax Base)

Article 80 (Determination and Correction)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(3) With respect to 16th 203. 16th 1, 203. 3rd 20, 63, 496th 200, 364th 205, 364th 208, 364th 205, 364th 208, 3064th 205, 364th 208, 360, 364th 205, 364th 206, 208, 364th 206, 205, 364th 206, 205, 364th 205, 201, 364th 206, 360, 204, 2000 education tax; 2nd 14,194, 1068th 200, 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The ○○○-si ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong 2 and 3, and the ○○○ ○○-dong ○○○ ○○-dong ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business places”) had registered business under the joint name of Lee○ and the plaintiffs.

B. Based on the data notified by the head of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, the Defendant conducted a special tax investigation on each of the instant workplaces based on the fact that each of the instant workplaces was omitted from the main amount of KRW 1,002,383,00 on the "Personal Records List", and confirmed that Lee○ and the Plaintiffs jointly run each of the instant establishments, deeming that Lee○ and the Plaintiffs were jointly and severally liable for tax payment, the Defendant determined and notified the special consumption tax, education tax, value-added tax, such as the entry of the notified tax amount on November 19, 202 in the separate sheet on November 19, 2002.

C. After that, the head of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, for a period from October 16, 200 to March 2001, added up 5,385,112,00 won by organizing awater and 39 personal records list in each place of business of this case, and notified the Defendant of the total amount of KRW 5,38,50,00,00, which was determined by reinvestigation, after deducting the initial return amount at each place of business of this case from the total amount of KRW 5,388,506,00, and the amount remaining after deducting the return omission amount at each place of business of this case, 2,241,85,126 won from the initial return amount, the head of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office corrected the initial tax disposition and the Plaintiffs as joint taxpayers, and thus the special consumption tax, education tax, and value-added tax (in cases where the initial tax disposition was made, only 100,000,000 additional tax assessment disposition should be added to 16,0,0,000.

D. On March 3, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the instant disposition, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request on September 30, 2005.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap 7-3, Eul evidence 1 to Eul 6-2, Eul evidence 8-1 to Eul evidence 13

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the name of business registration, the plaintiffs were joint business operators of each workplace of this case. However, since this ○○ actually operated each workplace of this case and the plaintiffs did not participate in the operation of each workplace of this case, the disposition of this case, which reported differently, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

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

(2) The provisions pertaining to the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall, notwithstanding the titles or forms of income, profit, property, act or transaction, be applied according to the substance.

Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

(1) National taxes, additional dues and expenses for disposition on default related to the jointly-owned property, joint projects, or property belonging to the joint project shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the jointly-owned property or joint project

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From July 200 to October 200 of the same year, the Plaintiffs agreed to make an investment in the business funds of all of the instant workplaces and to receive a profit according to their respective equity ratio among the instant workplaces, which had been preparing for opening the business at each of the instant workplaces. The Plaintiffs agreed to make an investment of KRW 150 million by the Plaintiff Song○○, KRW 650 million by the Plaintiff Kim○, KRW 150 million by the Plaintiff Kim○, KRW 150 million by the Plaintiff Kim○○, KRW 150 million by the Plaintiff Han○○, KRW 1550 million by each of the instant workplaces, and KRW 1 billion by the Plaintiff Lee○○○, and KRW 1 billion by the Plaintiff○○○.

(2) In order to reduce the burden of income tax on the plaintiffs, this ○○○○ shall set the ratio of investment and distribution of profit and loss to 40% with respect to the "○○○○" among each of the businesses in this case after obtaining a certificate of the personal seal impression and a certificate of seal impression from the plaintiffs, and on September 29, 200, 200, ○○○○○○ shall be determined as "○○○○○○○ 30% with respect to the investment and distribution of profit and loss," and 'the above plaintiffs can participate directly in the management of the business entrusted by the above plaintiffs through consultation.' The tax and public charges are to be borne by each of the above investors according to the above investment and distribution ratio of profit and loss in the name of the plaintiff Kim○○, Han○○○, and Lee○○○○, and the business registration under the name of the plaintiff ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ '○ '○ '○ '○ '○ '○'.

(3) On the other hand, ○○○ is a legal device for the plaintiffs to receive only the amount invested by the plaintiffs at any time in preparation for the plaintiffs to claim that each of the above businesses is their own, in comparison with the fact that the above businesses are not the business entity. On September 29, 2000, ○○○ was notarized by receiving a written waiver of ○○○○ and ○○○○○○○’s written waiver of ○○○○, and with respect to ○○○○○○○, as to ○○○○○○, as to ○○○○○○’s written waiver of ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, as to ○○○○○○’s written waiver of ○○○○ and ○○○○○○ on November 20, 200, in preparation for the same business contract on ○○○ and ○○○○ and ○○○, a new 85% share of 15% of ○○○ and accepted the Plaintiff’s waiver of ○○○○○.

(4) 이○○는 이 사건 각 사업장에 일정금액을 투자한 원고들로부터 위 각 사업장의 운영에 관한 모든 권한을 위임받아 전권을 행사하면서, 원고들에게 현금보관증 혹은 각서(투자자들이 언제든지 투자한 돈을 회수하기를 원할 경우 환불해 준다는 취지)를 작성해 주었다. 또한 원고들과 이○○는 매월 이 사건 각 사업장에서 나오는 전체 이득금을 200%로 하여 원고들이 각 투자금액에 따른 비율을 산정하여 비율대로 수익분배를 받기로 하였는데, 수익 분배내용을 보면 이○○가 전체 이득금을 45%, 원고 이○○가 55%, 원고 김○○이 35%, 원고 한○○, 송○○, 김○○, 김○○이 각 10%를 분배받게 된다(나머지 25%는 매춸 마담이나 웨이터의 매출순위에 따라 보너스 명목으로 차등 지급하게 된다).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A7-1 to Evidence A11-6, Evidence B-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are joint operators of each workplace of this case

Article 25(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that a joint business operator shall be jointly liable to pay national taxes, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default relating to the property belonging to a joint business or the joint business. Article 14(1) of the same Act provides that if a joint business operator is merely the title of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation and there is a separate person to whom such title belongs, the person to whom such title belongs shall be the person to whom such title belongs shall be the person liable to pay taxes. Therefore, whether the parties have a joint business relationship under the principle of substantial taxation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as whether the parties have made a business registration or report form of income tax

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs invested a certain amount between ○○○ and this case’s business establishment, and agreed to distribute a certain ratio in proportion to their respective investment amounts after aggregating the profits accrued from each of the above business establishment. However, the plaintiffs entered into a joint business agreement with each of the above businesses under the agreement to bear the expenses of the plaintiffs according to the above investment and distribution ratio of profits and losses. Of each of the business establishment of this case’s "○○○" among the two businesses of this case’s case’s "○○," the plaintiff Kim○, ○○, ○○, and ○○," respectively registered business in the name of ○○○, ○○, and ○○○, with an external appearance of joint business establishment, and expressed the intent to assume all the external responsibilities such as tax burden upon the waiver of the business establishment of each of the above businesses of this case’s joint business establishment of this case’s business establishment. Since the plaintiffs can not be concluded to have directly participated in the business operation of each of the above businesses of this case’s business establishment of this case’s joint business establishment of this case’s name or joint business establishment of this case’s agreement.

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff Kim○-○’s assertion

In light of the above facts, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant’s assertion that it was difficult for the Defendant to make an investment of KRW 150,000,000,000 to be distributed to the Plaintiff○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was based on the facts that it was difficult for the Defendant○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to make an investment in the instant case’s KRW 100,000,000 per month, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to make a final deposit of KRW 201.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the disposition of this case rendered on the premise that the plaintiffs are joint business operators of each workplace of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

List

(1) Details of notice of determination of special consumption tax

Items of Taxation

Places of business

Reversion

November 19, 2002

Notice Tax Amount

January 16, 2003

Additional Notice Tax Amount

Aggregate:

Special consumption tax

○

on October 2000

25,929,470

37,566,680

63,496,150

November 2000

24,976,860

58,938,630

83,915,490

December 2, 200

21,389,210

65,105,080

86,494,290

on 01. 01

21,397,140

60,131,840

81,528,980

on October 2001

23,361,060

73,692,590

97,053,650

on oly 2001

28,969,880

73,739,780

102,709,660

Sub-committees

146,023,620

369,174,600

515,189,220

○

on October 2000

12,427,640

18,005,420

30,433,060

November 2000

11,971,040

28,248,810

40,219,850

December 2, 200

10,251,480

31,204,360

41,455,840

on 01. 01

7,247,040

20,365,840

27,612,880

on October 2001

7,912,180

24,958,730

32,870,910

on oly 2001

9,811,730

24,974,810

34,786,540

Sub-committees

59,621,110

147,757,970

207,379,080

Total

205,635,730

516,932,570

722,568,300

(2) Details of the determination of education tax

Items of Taxation

Places of business

Reversion

November 19, 2002

Notice Tax Amount

January 16, 2003

Additional Notice Tax Amount

Aggregate:

Education Tax

○

on October 2000

5,862,780

8,331,320

14,194,100

November 2000

5,708,010

13,208,650

18,916,660

December 2, 200

4,941,150

14,745,830

19,686,980

on 01. 01

4,991,910

13,751,560

18,743,470

on October 2001

5,510,470

17,035,760

2,546,230

on oly 2001

6,907,560

17,227,700

24,135,260

Sub-committees

3,921,880

84,300,820

18,222,700

○

on October 2000

2,809,950

3,993,140

6,803,090

November 2000

2,735,760

6,330,800

9,066,560

December 2, 200

2,368,210

7,067,560

9,435,770

on 01. 01

1,690,720

4,657,460

6,348,180

on October 2001

1,866,340

5,769,790

7,636,130

on oly 2001

2,339,500

5,834,820

8,174,320

Sub-committees

13,810,480

3,653,570

47,464,050

Total

47,732,360

17,954,390

165,686,750

(3) Notice of determination of value-added tax

Items of Taxation

Places of business

Reversion

November 19, 2002

Notice Tax Amount

January 16, 2003

Additional Notice Tax Amount

Aggregate:

Value-added Tax

○

2, 200

45,124,740

101,138,600

146,263,340

1, 2001

44,571,350

125,534,970

170,106,320

Sub-committees

89,696,090

26,673,570

316,369,660

○

2, 200

21,627,810

48,474,730

70,102,540

1, 2001

16,095,770

41,147,710

57,243,480

Sub-committees

37,723,580

89,622,440

127,346,020

Total

127,419,670

316,296,010

443,715,680