The plaintiff seems to have been actually involved in the management and operation of the workplace of this case.

The plaintiff is not merely a nominal business operator, but also a joint business operator of the workplace of this case who actually participated in the management and operation of the workplace of this case. Even if the plaintiff is only a business operator under the name of the workplace of this case, it is difficult to deem the disposition of this case as invalid as a matter of course because the defect is apparent.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Guhap10103. Action to invalidate the imposition of value-added tax

The AA

The director of the tax office

April 27, 2012

June 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant confirmed that each imposition of the first half-year value-added tax for 2003 as of August 1, 2005, the second half-year value-added tax for 2003 as of September 6, 2004, and the second half-year value-added tax for 100 won for 204 as of March 1, 2005, and the second half-year value-added tax for 2000 won for 204 as of March 1, 2005, and each imposition of the global income tax for 2003 years as of August 1, 2005, and 00 won for 204 as of August 8, 2005 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was registered as a person who was registered as a business operator to conduct the wholesale and retail business of electrical materials with the trade name called 'DD' from O00 to O00 of Orpo-Eup in Gwangju City.

B. The Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax and global income tax for the taxable period from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 with respect to the Defendant, but did not pay each of the above taxes. On August 1, 2005, with respect to the omitted amount of the above tax base and the Plaintiff’s sales return, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the payment of KRW 00 for the first period of value-added tax for the second period of 2003, 00 for the second period of 2004, and 00 for the second period of 204, and on March 1, 2005, 200 for the second period of value-added tax for the second period of 204 and 00 for the second year of 203 years and 00 for the global income tax for August 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the global income tax for 2005”).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant business establishment is operated after KimE acquired the Plaintiff’s name by stealing and completed business registration, and the Plaintiff did not have any part in the instant business. Therefore, the instant disposition is a tax disposition imposed on the Plaintiff, which is merely a business owner in the name of the Plaintiff, and is null and void in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Under the principle of substantial taxation, taxpayers should be determined by legal substance, not external appearance, and the actual title of the above taxable income, profit, property, act, or transaction is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs. However, the actual title of the transaction is merely nominal, and there is a burden of proof for proving that there is another person to whom it actually belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984). Based on the above legal principle, the Plaintiff used the above business to use the name of the owner of the instant business from KimE for the purpose of 0,000,000 to 20,0000,0000,0000,00000, 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(2) If objective circumstances suggesting that a certain legal relationship or fact which is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation can only be identified in a accurate investigation of the facts, the taxation disposition under the above Act, which misleads the fact of taxation requirements, cannot be deemed null and void, even if the defect is serious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). In light of the above exceptionally, the following circumstances recognized by the health stand and the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) whether the actual business owner of the workplace in this case is determined or not in the course of operating the business, can only be identified by examining specific factual relations, such as who takes part in the decision, and whom benefits belong, and (ii) the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax and global income tax are reported by the plaintiff, and the tax authority does not intervene in the process, and the report itself does not appear to be null and void even if the plaintiff does not appear in the name of the business owner in this case.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.