It is true that the tax authority establishes the fact of the name transfer, etc. that the outbound transfer was made in the name of the business operator.

In order to impose tax on a general tax rate by deeming that the outbound transfer was made in the name of the business operator in the form of the name of the business operator and actually was made through another domestic residence borrowing the Plaintiff’s name, the tax authority must prove the name transfer, etc.

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 1999, 1,221,620 won, value-added tax for the second period of 199, 7,040,420 won for the first period of 200, 7,742,410 won for the second period of 200, 201, 201, 12,287,250 won for the second period of 201, 202, 10,84,030 won for the first period of 202, 199, 19,743, 193, 190 won for the second period of 202, 203, 15, 742, 410 won for the second period of 205, 207, 207, 205, 209, 207, 2097, 2005 won for the second period of 209.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. All claims shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act recognize it as being in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the deletion of the 15th page 13.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.