Whether a business operator actually operates a place of business

The plaintiff cannot be said to have actually participated in the business place at issue, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff jointly operated the business place at least that of the issue.

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 45,042,930 on December 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff in 2005 and the imposition of KRW 10,522,680 on February 2, 2006 on the second value-added tax in 2005 shall be revoked.

With respect to whether the Plaintiff actually participated in the operation of the instant business, there are some questions in recognizing that the Plaintiff was involved in the instant business, such as the fact that the Plaintiff became a person in charge of business registration regarding the instant business establishment upon the request of 000, the actual management and business activities, etc. of the instant business establishment, and the management of the funds used for the operation of the company, etc., by 000. However, on the other hand, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff operated the instant business jointly with the Plaintiff, taking full account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was in charge of the business of transferring the money from the main transaction office of the instant business establishment to another account under the management of 00 while managing the accounts with the money deposited from the main transaction office of the instant business establishment; and (b) the value-added tax imposed on the instant business establishment even after the liquidation of the relationship with 0000, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff did not have any actual participation in the instant business establishment; and (c) at least, the Plaintiff operated the instant

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation that the Plaintiff was imposed at a nominal workplace.

Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du21013 ( December 27, 2007)]

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The judgment below was examined in light of the records of this case, but the assertion on the grounds of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.