Suwon District Court 2010Guhap6961 ( November 04, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2010J085 (2010.03.05)

Unlike the documents originally submitted, it does not accept the argument that it is not the actual representative.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was an actual operator in the process of tax investigation on the grounds that the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the actual operator only after the disposition was imposed, and that the Plaintiff was not the actual operator.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2010Nu39597 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Kim

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap6961 Decided November 4, 2010

September 6, 2011

November 15, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's decision of June 1, 2009 is revoked. On 2006, value-added tax of 10,136,80 won for the second term of 206 against the plaintiff, value-added tax of 10,376,830 won for the first term of 207, value-added tax of 19,14,060 won for the second term of 207, value-added tax of 19,14,060 won for the second term of 207, value-added tax of 22,369,020 won for the first term of 208, value-added tax of 9,762,380 won for the second term of 208, Class A earned income tax of 4,685,200, Class A earned income tax of 2,758,508,708,7808 won for each of the following reasons.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning this case is that the plaintiff was not aware of his/her own business, and the plaintiff was merely an operator of his/her own business in his/her name and was not aware of his/her own business, and that the plaintiff was merely an operator of his/her own business in his/her own name and was merely an operator of his/her own business in his/her own business to file a claim for transfer of the building, or that the plaintiff was aware of his/her actual business in his/her own business in his/her own business, and that the plaintiff was not aware of his/her own business in his/her own business in his/her own business, and that the plaintiff was not aware of his/her own business in his/her own business in his/her own name and did not appear to have been aware of the fact that he/she received money from his/her own business in his/her own business and stated his/her own business in his/her name during the first instance trial on the claim for transfer of the building. The plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the facts that the plaintiff was transferred to the plaintiff.

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