Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-70349 ( December 20, 2016)

Additional tax imposed on the actual entrepreneur shall be justified

(As stated in the judgment of the court below), since the plaintiff appears to have practically operated the business by lending the business name, the imposition of additional tax on the business registration under another person's name is lawful.

Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 33 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Nu33789 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap70349 Decided December 0, 2016

April 11, 2017

May 16, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of each value-added tax on August 4, 2014 is revoked in all the imposition of each value-added tax on each taxable period stated in the column of "tax amount of notice" in the attached Table 1 list for the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for any addition or dismissal below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

〇 제1심 판결서 4쪽 6행 ', 13, 14'를 삭제한다.

〇 제1심 판결서 5쪽 밑에서 8행 '사용하였다.' 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

On October 1, 2008, the agreement entered into betweenCC and new DDDD on October 1, 2008 entered this H as the representative of new DDD and affixed the seal of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s affixing the seal seems to be aware of the new DDD business at the time of signing and sealing the Plaintiff’s seal.

〇 제1심 판결서 8쪽 11행 '점'다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that GGG acquired the tools of this H and paid the delinquent tax amount of this H as part of the acquisition price. However, there is no evidence supporting the said assertion except the Plaintiff’s statement (Evidence A2, 3, and Evidence A23-2) that is not believed later.

〇 제1심 판결서 8쪽 밑에서 7행'보인다.' 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

The respective statements in Evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and evidence Nos. 23 and 25 (the same shall apply to evidence Nos. 13 and 14) are hard to believe in light of the following circumstances in light of the relationship between each of the aforementioned statements made in the above facts of recognition, the timing of the statement and the identity of the statements made by them, and the identity of each of the above facts consistent with the statements. The statements or images of Evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17 through 22, and 24 (including all evidence attached with a provisional number) are insufficient to back the statements (the same shall apply even if the plaintiff examines the reference materials submitted by the plaintiff after the closing of the arguments in the trial).

2. Conclusion

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