No nominal owner is excessive and there is a separate person to whom income belongs.

The actual operation of BB resources is the Plaintiff’s type AA, and the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent the name for AA for a large amount of restriction on financial transactions to the bad credit holder. However, in the course of the investigation, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was operating BB resources at his own will, and the Plaintiff also stated that the Plaintiff was working at work, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2014Guhap2096 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

AA

O Head of tax office

October 24, 2014

November 28, 2014

1. The part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax among the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 5, 2013, the imposition of global income tax, value-added tax OOO, and resident tax OOOO on the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in the scrap metal wholesale business under the name of the Plaintiff at OO-gu OO-gu 118 to 37, “B resources” (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. As a result of the investigation into the instant workplace from April 30, 2013 to May 30, 2013, the OO regional tax office notified the Defendant, the disposition authority, of imposing global income tax, value-added tax, etc. on the ground that the recycled waste resources purchased have been processed.

C. On July 12, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 000 of global income tax (including additional tax; hereinafter referred to as "tax imposition disposition of global income tax in the instant case") and KRW 000 of the value-added tax (including additional tax; hereinafter referred to as "tax imposition disposition of this case") and KRW 000 of the resident tax to be imposed on income tax (hereinafter referred to as "tax imposition disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition of imposition of global income tax and value-added tax, and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on August 13, 2013, but was dismissed on May 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (each number is included) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not, ex officio, as to the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax.

According to Article 93(1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) (amended by Act No. 12153, Feb. 25, 2005), local income tax pro rata is a local tax that should be paid to the head of a local government having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax. If the head of a tax office collects income tax through a method of imposition and a notice of correction, determination, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, even if such local income tax is imposed and collected by the head of the relevant local government, it is deemed that the head of the relevant local government imposed and collected local income tax. Therefore, the defendant seeking revocation of such disposition

The disposition of imposition of resident tax of this case constitutes local income tax, which is the tax base of income tax to be paid pursuant to the Income Tax Act, and thus, even if the defendant imposed and notified the tax along with the detailed disposition of global income in this case, the defendant of the appeal litigation shall be the head of the Busan Metropolitan City OOO (No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3 as the head of OO-Metropolitan City) having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax among the lawsuit of this case is illegal as it is against a non-qualified person (On the other hand, pursuant to Article 177-4 (4) of the former Local Tax Act, where the head of a tax office refunds the income tax that forms the tax base for pro rata local income tax, the head of a Si/Gun must return the pro rata local income tax. Thus, the plaintiff is sufficient to obtain a revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case against the defendant Eul, and it is not necessary to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax of this case. It is also necessary to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax of this case separately. The above Supreme Court Decision 2004Du

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual operation of BB resource is the Plaintiff’s type AA, and the Plaintiff only lent its name for AAA with a large amount of restriction on financial transactions. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax and value-added tax on the premise that the Plaintiff actually operated BB resource and received income from the actual operation of BB resource (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) is unlawful since it violates the substance over form principle.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the actual operation of BB resources is the Plaintiff, taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the testimony of a part of AA, as a whole, and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the testimony of the respective descriptions No. 5 and the testimony of AA, consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot be viewed differently.

① During the investigation process of the OO of a regional tax office, AA made a statement that “E resources were operated by the Plaintiff at his own expense,” and the Plaintiff also made a direct investment of KRW 200 million and opened BB resources every time the Plaintiff closed down his business due to the difficulty of management due to the hurging of advance payment while operating DD companies. AA was in charge of business operations, etc. to AA, paid monthly the amount of KRW 200,000 to KRW 200,000,000,000 as incentives, and he was in charge of the overall management of the actual business while performing duties related to the scrap metal, and was in charge of the work every day before he worked at the entertainment establishments operated separately.

② The Plaintiff submitted to this court a confirmation of the fact that eight members of the BB resource management company (Evidence No. 5-1 to 8 of the evidence No. 5) are “A,” with the content that it is known that it is a real manager of the BB resource and that it is operating the business only under the Plaintiff’s name. However, each written statement prepared by part of the persons preparing the above confirmation document is not a transaction with the Plaintiff, but a transaction with the Plaintiff.” (Evidence No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4), which is known that AA was found to be office and changed the confirmation document to the effect that it was the actual business owner of the BB resource and that it was not aware that it was the actual business owner of the BB resource, and that it was not consistent with the evidence No. 4-1 of the regional tax office’s testimony during the process of investigation, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff and the actual business owner of the BB resource to have made a false statement to the effect that it was not consistent with the aforementioned evidence No. 3-1 of the Association’s testimony.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that the transaction account of BB resources in the name of the Plaintiff was transferred to 00, the head of AA, 00, the wife 000, and the friendly 0000 of AA, according to the management of AA. However, insofar as the above remittance content is a large amount of tax in arrears, and thus it appears that there is a high possibility of paying benefits to AA that it is difficult to conduct financial transactions in its own name, it is difficult to deem that the above account was managed by AA solely on the ground that there is a remittance from the transaction account of BB resources to the head and wife of AA, etc., or that AA actually operated BB resources.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining claim except the dismissed part is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.