Even if a nominal business operator is not subject to a disposition of imposition, it shall not be void.

Even if the plaintiff is a nominal business operator, the reporting act, such as value-added tax, and the disposition of the tax authority may not be deemed to be null and void as it is not clear that the defect is apparent.

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 for the second period of October 1, 2008 (pre-determined) 20,169,160 won for the second period of 208, value-added tax for the first period of December 1, 2008, value-added tax for 1,14,670 won for the second period of 208, value-added tax for 12,264,80 won for the second period of 208, March 9, 2009, and 853,160,160, total income tax for 208, 209, 209, 209, 209, 30, 160, 13, 60, 160, 208, 205, 209, 209, 209, 360, 209, 209, 2005, 36, 19, 25, 20008.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On January 30, 2007, the Plaintiff is a person registered as an individual business operator who engages in the business of manufacturing electronic parts under the trade name of “D. D. EE-dong 729-6” (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

B. The Defendant reported the value-added tax, global income tax, and source tax from the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2009 to the Defendant in the name of the Plaintiff, but did not pay it, on October 1, 2008, the amount of value-added tax for the second half of 20,169,160, value-added tax for the first half of 2008 to December 1, 2008 (value-Added Tax 41,14,670, 670, 209, 209, 206, 30, 209, 209, 30, 206, 9, 206, 30, 205, 9, 206, 9, 206, 30, 205, 9, 206, 9, 206, 9, 208 (3, 209).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that the disposition in this case is against a person who is not an actual business operator, and that it was made without the defendant's refusal to submit a name-oriented business report to the defendant, and its defect is significant and obvious, in light of the fact that the plaintiff worked in the Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., which is not the place of the business in this case at the time, and the above Gangseo also recognized the fact that he used the plaintiff's name, and that he is responsible for paying wages to employees.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In light of the substance over form principle, the taxpayer’s confirmation must be based on the legal substance, not external appearance. If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be deemed the taxpayer, but the claimant has the burden of proof.

(2) According to the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, evidence Nos. 12 through 15, and evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 7, the plaintiff received a request from Gangwon-do to lend the registration name of DDR operator, and accepted the registration under the name of the plaintiff on Jan. 25, 2007. The plaintiff worked from the East Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd. for the period from Jun. 9, 2006 to Aug. 20, 207, and the plaintiff could not accept the plaintiff's assertion that he actually operated the business of this case after the registration of business was made under the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that he borrowed the part of the plaintiff's title No. 7 of the plaintiff's assertion to the purport that he borrowed the plaintiff's title No. 7 from Oct. 23, 2008 to Sep. 21, 2009.

(3) However, a tax assessment conducted on a person who does not have the factual basis of the legal relation, income, or act that is subject to taxation is significant and apparent. However, in a case where there are objective grounds to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation, or factual basis that is not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual basis, it cannot be deemed that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation that misleads the fact subject to taxation is null and void automatically (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). Further, in a case of a tax return method, the value-added tax and global income tax are assessed on a tax basis by which the taxpayer voluntarily determines the tax base and tax amount, and as a matter of principle, the duty to pay is determined specifically by the taxpayer’s act of filing a return, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a collection disposition ordered by the taxpayer becomes null and void due to a serious and obvious defect or an unlawful act itself.

(4) In the instant case, according to the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence No. 9 (including each number), and Eul evidence No. 9 (including the Plaintiff’s seal), the Plaintiff’s business registration was made with respect to the instant workplace based on the Plaintiff’s business registration application with the seal affixed, and the Plaintiff’s personal information was verified. The real estate lease agreement for the instant workplace was made by the Plaintiff’s succession to the lease agreement for the former lessee. ② The real estate lease agreement for the instant workplace was made by the former lessee’s agent, and the Plaintiff’s global income tax report was made by the former lessee’s agent. ② The Plaintiff’s transfer of value-added tax on the instant workplace and the Plaintiff’s global income tax were all reported in the name of the Plaintiff, as well as the insurance agency’s income that the Plaintiff operated with respect to global income tax, and ③ The representative of the instant workplace was the Plaintiff’s personal information and statement that the Plaintiff’s mobile phone transfer was made under the Plaintiff’s name of the Plaintiff’s mobile phone No.

(5) Therefore, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts are: (i) there are sufficient objective reasons to view the Plaintiff as the actual business operator; (ii) whether the Plaintiff is the actual business operator of the workplace of this case can only be identified in the process of operating the business; and (iii) in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of filing the Plaintiff’s tax base and the disposition of this case are significant and apparent; (ii) the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount return of value-added tax and global income tax were made by the Plaintiff’s agent; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s act of filing the instant report does not appear to have any defect in the Plaintiff’s report itself (the Plaintiff’s income generated outside of the workplace of this case can not be seen as being known to the Plaintiff’s identity without the Plaintiff’s aid; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s report was made in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s allegation that it was difficult to immediately use the Plaintiff’s domestic income from October 1 to November 2, 2008.

3. Conclusion

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