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

2014Guhap20033 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

KimA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

April 3, 2015

April 24, 2015

1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax on the Plaintiff on November 8, 2013 is revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax on the Plaintiff on November 8, 2013 is revoked (the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of the global income tax on the Plaintiff on December 10, 2013, but appears to have been written in writing on November 8, 2013).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant determined that on November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff imposed the global income tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a global income tax return in 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff engaged in an electronic commerce transaction with OOO-gu OO, 647 BB building 4300 from 4,4300 to 201, and that the Plaintiff did not file a global income tax return for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition of global income tax”). The Defendant notified the Plaintiff by electronic service on the 8th of the same month (hereinafter “instant disposition of global income tax”).

B. On November 10, 2013, the Defendant served a demand note on the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would not pay the said global income tax, that the Plaintiff would pay “OOOO(including additional charges and increased increased OOO(including additional charges)” to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal on January 28, 2014, but was dismissed on May 27 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 23, 25, 26 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in the instant lawsuit is legitimate

In addition to the disposition of global income tax in this case, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues (i.e., OOO. – OOOO. However, since additional dues under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are naturally generated under the legal provisions without the final procedure of determination by the tax office if national taxes are not paid by the payment deadline, the notice of additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005). Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of additional dues in this case is unlawful.

3. Whether the imposition of global income tax in this case is lawful

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff merely lent the name of business registration for the operation of the Internet shopping mall by transferring its business registration certificate, bank account, physical card, security card, and password to a name-free person who became aware of through the Internet. Therefore, the disposition imposing global income tax in violation of the principle of substantial taxation is unlawful.

2) Defendant

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff directly opened the business registration under the trade name of “CCC”, and thereafter reported the closure of the business registration, and that there was a fact that the Plaintiff inquireds about the details of the passbook transaction, which the Plaintiff claimed to have delivered to the person under whose name the Plaintiff was not the party under whose name the account was the party under whose name the account was the party under whose name the account was the party under whose name the Plaintiff was the party under whose name was the party under whose name was

B. Determination

The tax authority shall, in principle, assume the burden of proof as to the existence and the tax base of the facts requiring taxation. This also applies to cases where the tax authority contests that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. and the actual owner of the transaction, etc. are different, barring any special circumstances, such as a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, as long as the tax authority imposed tax on the nominal owner as the nominal owner of the business, it is necessary for the business owner to assert and prove that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. is different from the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. so long as the tax was imposed on the nominal owner. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge made reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirement. As a result, if it is unclear whether the nominal owner of the transaction belongs to the nominal owner, and it becomes impossible to obtain conviction of the judge, then the disadvantages therefrom are returned to the tax authority that ultimately bears the ultimate burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

First of all, according to Gap evidence No. 17 and Eul evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the plaintiff registered the business with the trade name "CCC" around October 23, 2012, and reported the closure of the business on March 20, 2013; the plaintiff withdrawn OOOOOOO in the bank account in the name of the plaintiff that the plaintiff delivered the above business registration to non-resident on March 18, 2013; and the fact that the plaintiff inquiredd the above bank account transaction that the plaintiff delivered to non-resident on his/her mobile phone with his/her own mobile phone name.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 21, the plaintiff consistently used the above 20-year business registration statement to the 20-year business registration statement, and issued 3-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-2.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of additional dues is unlawful, and the remaining claims are reasonable, and the disposition of imposition of global income tax of this case is revoked.