I have actually operated a business entity as a joint business entity.

In the monthly settlement data, the details of the sales of ecoophones are included, and it is recognized that there was an omission of sales of ecoophones through a mercul, etc. on the details of support for ecoophones, and it is judged as a joint business operator who is the actual business operator in view of the fact that there was the most superior executive member in performing

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Taxation under Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act,

Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Guhap56427 (Law No. 17, 2016)

Gangwon A

BB Director of the Tax Office

on 016 02.02

on 07 July 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 18, 2012, Defendant BB director of the tax office imposed global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) on the Plaintiff on June 18, 2012, and the imposition of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes) imposed on the Plaintiff on June 18, 2012 by Defendant CCC director of the tax office on June 18, 2012, and the imposition of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional taxes) on the second-term value-added tax for the first-year period of 2011 is revoked (the date of the disposition specified in the written complaint is deemed to be a clerical error, so the above disposition is deemed to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 21, 2010, Nonparty KimD completed the registration of business that mainly engages in services/products trading business under the trade name of “EEE”. The F system is a business that provides online games called compliance games. EE concluded a F system and pre-paid card total sales contract and concluded a pre-paid card sales contract to sell pre-paid cards and recruit PC stores in the PC.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Office”) conducted a tax investigation on the F System from February 7, 2012 to June 8, 2012, and confirmed that the Plaintiff operated the EE jointly with KimD, and that the Plaintiff failed to report the sales of the EE amount of KRW 00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the supply price”) in total during the taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010 and 2011, and notified Defendant CCC head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the location of the place of business of the EE.

C. On June 18, 2012, Defendant CCC head of the tax office separately imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 for the second period of value-added tax (including additional tax) for the second period of 2010 and KRW 00,000,000 for the first period of 201. On June 18, 2012, Defendant BB head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000 for global income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on September 14, 2012 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 6, 2013, but was dismissed on December 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, the plaintiff did not have made a equity investment or received a profit and loss distribution in the EE, and the KimD branch became aware of before the opening of the EE business, and the duties performed by the plaintiff in the EE are limited to the level of the role of the intermediate manager, so the plaintiff does not constitute a joint business operator of the EE.

Second, the defendants failed to secure specific evidence that KimD omitted the sales of ecoophones equivalent to the issues amount.

Third, EE received from the F system as a part of the F system's provision of game services to the reservoir of the F system, and EE does not receive the payment for the provision of the F system's service of attracting member stores. EE only deducted 50% of the cash received from the franchise store as a consideration for the provision of the above service of attracting member stores and delivered only the remainder to the FF system. Thus, in order to impose value-added tax on the money received from the franchise store store in return for the provision of the above service of attracting member stores, EE must specify the cash received from the franchise store and calculate 50% of the cash received from the franchise as the supply price (tax base). However, the Defendants considered the amount equivalent to the value of the E EE phone supplied as the price for the provision of the service of attracting member stores, i.e., the price for the provision of the service of attracting member stores.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff is a joint business proprietor of the EE

A) Fact-finding

(1) When the Plaintiff is detained by Gangseo II, a real operator of the GGH system, GGP, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and HH system, the Plaintiff agreed to establish the FF system in consultation with the GJ, etc., and divide the profits accrued from the FF system into YJ and 5:5.

(2) The FF system needs to take charge of the role of pre-paid card sales and franchise store recruitment, and this led to the establishment of EE with KimD as its representative in name.

(3) KimD would receive KRW 5 million per month and accepted the representative positions of EE. At the early stage of the business, he/she was partly performing the duties of settlement of funds, management of employees' commuting, etc. while he/she retired from EE while he/she was not involved in the operation of EE.

(4) The Plaintiff, while attending the EE and F system, was in charge of educating KimK, a representative of the F system in the name of the F system, conducting the audit of various documents, conducting the education of employees, arranging the revenue and expenditure of the EE, conducting the final review of this, and transmitting the current status of the EE to J.

(5) After that, as KimD closed down the EE and closed down the relevant business, MF was established under the name of an employee of EE, and a new MF was operated under the same human structure and business method as MF was almost the same.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5 through 7, Eul evidence No. 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff entered into a profit distribution agreement with the YJ and established the F system, and the management of the EE, which is its total board, was to take full charge of the plaintiff, KimD, which is registered under the name of the EE, was to perform the revenue and expenditure management duties that he/she was in charge only after the withdrawal of the KE, and was finally supervised by the plaintiff in the performance of the above duties. The duties and status of KimD in the EE can be replaced by others at any time, while the duties and status of the EE can be replaced by others, it seems that there was no significant change in the status of the plaintiff in the EE, and even after the closure of the EE, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff actually operated the EE as a joint business proprietor of the EE. Meanwhile, all of the above facts are consistent with the contents of the plaintiff's statement (Evidence No. 5) and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants relied on the other party's statement is without merit.

2) Whether there was an omission in sales corresponding to the issue amount

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proof of the fact of taxation requirements shall be deemed to be an imposing authority. However, in a case where it is proved that the fact of taxation requirements has been presumed in light of the empirical rules in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless it proves that the relevant fact of taxation is inappropriate to apply the empirical rules or that there are special circumstances to exclude the application of such empirical rules in the relevant case, the pertinent taxation disposition cannot be readily concluded to be an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002

In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s monthly settlement data of EE acquired in the course of investigation (No. 10-2) as 00,000,000 won and its monthly sales amount were 0,000,000 won and 00,000 won were 10,000 won and 00,000 won were 20,000 won and 00,000 won were 20,000 won and 00,000 won were 20,000 won and 00,000 won were 20,000 won and 0,000 won were 20,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000 won were 20,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 20,000 won and 10,000,00 won and 10,000 won.

(iii) the propriety of any measure the value of which is the value of the ecoophone;

In addition, EE does not have any evidence to acknowledge that some (50%) out of the price (50,00,000 won) acquired from the F system from the sale of the above ecoophone (50%) for the purpose of self-financial transit was distributed to the F system. Furthermore, even if 50% was paid to the F system, it cannot be asserted as to the output tax amount, which is the tax amount of the disposition of this case, for this reason, even though it can be deducted as the input tax amount after being issued a legitimate purchase tax invoice for the said portion. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit (or, in full view of the purport of the arguments in subparagraphs 5 and 6 above, it is recognized that the price received by EE from the sale of the ecoophone as above is used as the operating fund of EE, and is not delivered to the FF system).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.