Even if a company has made a report on behalf of the company, the effect of such report shall be the business operator.

The tax liability of value-added tax to be additionally borne by the member company for the reason that the member company was unfairly deducted from the input tax without notifying the business operator while vicariously making a report.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition disposition of each value-added tax by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (State) On August 25, 1994, ○○ was a juristic person established for the purpose of general freight trucking services, etc., and the Plaintiffs entered into an entrusted management contract with the (State) ○○○○ upon the payment of a certain amount of rent by leaving the private car owned by them and paying a certain amount of rent.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiffs paid the value-added tax by means of reducing the input tax amount by means of deducting the input tax amount from credit card sales slips with a false amount of KRW 25,306,784, which was made between January 2002 and January 2004; and (b) imposed each value-added tax stated in the purport of the claim.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

The plaintiffs (State) issued a credit card sales slip under the plaintiffs' names and received an unfair deduction of input tax amount. In such a case, the value-added tax of this case should be imposed on (State) ○○, which is not the plaintiffs, according to the substance over form principle.

3. Related statutes;

Article 32-2 (Tax Credit for Use of Credit Cards, etc.)

(3) Where a general taxable person separately enters and confirms the amount of value-added tax on credit card sales slip, etc., the amount of value-added tax shall be deemed the input tax amount that may be deducted under Articles 17 (1) and 26 (3).

4. Determination

First of all, the plaintiffs entered into an entrusted management contract with the (ju) ○○ and entered into an entrusted management contract with the plaintiffs, payment of the admission fee in return for the entrusted management contract, and so long as a cargo transport business is conducted after obtaining a business registration certificate for general taxable persons, the plaintiffs are deemed to be a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act, and therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion

Next, in this case, it cannot be found that ○○○ prepared a false credit card sales slip under the name of the Plaintiffs and obtained an unfair deduction of input tax amount. In addition, even if ○○○ had illegally deducted input tax amount from the credit card sales slip under the name of the Plaintiffs falsely prepared, and even if the Plaintiffs did not know of this, the Plaintiffs were liable to pay the Value-Added Tax Act, since the effect of the consignment management contract concluded between ○○ and a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act belongs to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs are liable to pay the Value-Added Tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant disposition in question is against the principle

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.