Whether the actual representative of a corporation is who;

Since there is a lack of evidence to prove that the Plaintiff is an employee, the Plaintiff, a representative, should be viewed as the representative on the certified transcript of corporate register.

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 Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,653,470 on January 2002 and value-added tax of KRW 4,917,470 on February 2002 against the Plaintiff on October 2005 and value-added tax of KRW 10,039,790 on January 2005 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 01, 2001, the Plaintiff completed business registration as the representative of ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○○, whose main business is the manufacturing business of geographical and precision parts processing, etc.

B. Around December 05, 2005, the Defendant received a processing tax invoice equivalent to 39,330,000 won from an enterprise "○○" without real transactions in the business year of 2002, and issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff by deducting the input tax amount from the input tax amount as of January 03, 2005, and notifying the Plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax 1,653,470 won for the first period of 2002, and value-added tax 4,917,470 won for the second period of 2002, and value-added tax 10,039,790 won for the first period of 203 as of October 2005.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-3, Gap evidence 3 and 8-1-3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The assertion

The Plaintiff, around 2001.07, lent only the name of business registration to Kim○, an employer, and a person who actually operated ○○○○○○, is Kim○, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful in violation of the substance over form principle.

(b) Related statutes;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation) (1) If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it belongs, the person to which it belongs shall be the person to whom it belongs as a taxpayer and to

C. Determination

According to the substance over form principle, if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction which is the object of taxation is nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer. However, in applying the substance over form principle under Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is only the nominal title of the transaction which is the object of taxation, and there is another person to whom the transaction actually belongs.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 5, 7-1, 2, 7-9, 6, 11-6, 12-18, and 12-18 of the evidence Nos. 11, and 12-18 of the evidence Nos. 4-2, the plaintiff worked as an employee in charge of production at ○○○○○, Inc. in the course of Kim○○’s business from around 1995 to around 30, 201, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

Like this, the fact that an enterprise '○○○○○○' worked as an employee in charge of production at the company '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’, and the Plaintiff was engaged in production in the business from July 2001 to October 207, 2003, which is between the working hours of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the working hours of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and was paid KRW 1.6 million to ○○○○○○, around 25th day of each month from Kim○○○. On July 27, 2004, Kim○ transferred to the Plaintiff, as retirement allowance, the Plaintiff established the '○○○○○’ business as the principal business for precision parts processing, etc. at around that time, and registered its business.

However, on the other hand, Kim Il-young appeared as a witness of this case, and testified. The plaintiff retired from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Corporation on June 30, 2001, and was assigned with a retirement allowance set up as retirement allowance, and established the ○○○○○○○○○○○○. However, as the witness requested to help him to become a witness due to a close-down relationship with the management, he was able to handle the fund management, such as accounting, accounting, etc., and the plaintiff was also engaged in production and business. In that process, the plaintiff paid the amount of monthly living expenses to the plaintiff with the funds of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

According to the above facts of recognition, even if there are circumstances as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that Kim○ was an actual business operator of ○○○○○○, or entirely reverted business income or profits of ○○○○○○○○○○○, while the Plaintiff was an employee, and the Plaintiff did not change solely from each of the statements in Gap’s evidence Nos. 13 through 18.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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