Cho-201-west-506 (20 April 2012)

Even if a business report is not made, if it is confirmed that the actual business was conducted, it can be called a business operator.

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the person who supplies goods or services independently for business regardless of whether the business purpose is profit-making or non-profit-making," so if it is confirmed that the actual business is not reported even if the business purpose is not reported."

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap25606 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

2014Guhap17036, Action by Independent Party

HongA

O Head of tax office

Intervenor of an independent party

BB

August 26, 2016

September 9, 2016

1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part resulting from the participation shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

Cheong-gu Office

○○ Main Action: The Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on March 16, 201, KRW 1st 2,683,330 in 206, KRW 2,598,820 in 206, KRW 1st 2,657,790 in 2007, KRW 2,602,340 in 207, KRW 2,512,670 in 208, KRW 2,508, KRW 2,508, KRW 2,508, KRW 2,510 in 209, KRW 2,446,90 in 2,357, KRW 730 in 206, KRW 265, KRW 260 in 205, KRW 207 in 208, KRW 3608 in 208, KRW 200 in 205, KRW 209 in 209, KRW 36086,509.

○ Independent Party Participation: It is identical to the purport of the principal claim.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 13, 1976, the Plaintiff purchased an O-O-O second floor building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 26, 1957, the Plaintiff registered the business of "CC Dada and building" with the trade name as "CC Dada and building" and registered the business of operating a real estate leasing business, and then directly operated the multiple banks on the first floor of the above building (hereinafter referred to as "the instant multiple banks"), from October 1, 2005, and from October 1, 2008, KimE operated the said multiple banks respectively, and from October 1, 2008, the business report and the business registration were already completed with the trade name "CC". The Plaintiff reported the Plaintiff's business report and the business registration under the name of the Plaintiff, which had already been completed with the trade name "CC". The Plaintiff reported and paid the Plaintiff's global income tax and the global income tax on the portion other than the above multiple real estate rent and the real estate rent in the instant building after October 1, 205.

D. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the Plaintiff around December 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff leased the said store to DoD and KimE and received the price for the lease of real estate from DoD and KimE; (b) deemed that: (c) on March 16, 201, the Plaintiff omitted the amount of the lease of real estate; (d) on February 2, 2006, KRW 2,598, KRW 820, KRW 1,657, KRW 207, KRW 206, KRW 206, KRW 207, KRW 205, KRW 206, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 205, KRW 206, KRW 205, KRW 206, KRW 205, KRW 206, KRW 208, KRW 209, KRW 206, KRW 205, KRW 208, KRW 2005, KRW 2085, KRW 2085.

E. On October 27, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 27, 201, but dismissed on April 20, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entry in Gap's 3 through 5, 10 (including branch numbers for those with a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the application for intervention by an independent party

(a) The intervenor's motion for intervention;

On June 23, 2010, an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " intervenor") was issued with the business report and business registration certificate on the building of this case from October 1, 2010, one of the co-owners of the building that received 1/5 shares of the building of this case from the plaintiff on June 23, 2010, and since October 1, 2010, the intervenor suffered enormous damages due to the illegal possession of the KimE, which does not deliver the store of this case despite the expiration of the contract term, and the intervenor filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 20OOOO by the Seoul Central District Court 20OOO) against KimE and her husband F. Accordingly, according to the result of the lawsuit of this case, it is anticipated that the infringement of rights is anticipated that the defendant is still the lessee of the KimE store of this case, such as issuance of the business registration certificate to the plaintiff and the intervenor.

B. Determination

An independent party intervention may be allowed when all or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his/her own right, or a third party who claims that his/her right is infringed upon based on the result of a lawsuit as a party (Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act). Among them, an intervention in the subject matter of a right may be allowed when the plaintiff's claim and the intervenor's claim are deemed to be a relationship incompatible with the plaintiff's claim. The intervention in the prevention of death may be allowed in cases where it is objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question, and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant have an objective intent to harm the intervenor, and that the plaintiff's right or legal status is likely to be infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da4852, 48569, May 28, 199).

As the intervenor sought revocation of the disposition of this case in the same manner as the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit and the intervenor's claim cannot be viewed as a relationship which is incompatible with the plaintiff's assertion itself, and there are no other circumstances that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the principal lawsuit of this case. Thus, the intervenor's application for intervention is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that there is no value-added tax on the rent for the store of this case from DoD and KimE, a business operator under the Food Sanitation Act means a person who has obtained a business license, who has reported the business, or who has registered the business, and therefore, the person who reported the business of the store of this case was the Plaintiff. Therefore, DoD, KimE, etc. is merely an employee of the said DaD, KimE, etc., and that the rent specified in the Dagrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt contract of this case is not more than half of the monthly rent paid by the lessee of the present store of this case. Considering the fact that it is not a rent but a operating profit, it is reasonable to regard the Darrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On September 19, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a multi-facel operation contract with the following content, with respect to the instant store owned by the Plaintiff as lessor, and with respect to KimE as lessee:

Deposit: Daily deposit 50 million won

Monthly tax: 2.9 million won

Section 1:In leasing the above multiples on a monthly basis with electricity, each of the following shall enter into a contract under mutual agreement:

§ 2. The lessee has paid to the lessor in lump sum on September 19, 2008, the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, simultaneously with the contract.

ARTICLE 3:The monthly rent shall be paid by the lessee to the lessor at the end of each month (at least two months shall not be in arrears).

Article 4. The period of multilateral lease: It shall be two years from the date of the contract, but may be extended and operated under mutual agreement after the expiration of the period.

Article 5: Value-added taxes, taxes, public charges and all other public charges shall be liable to the lessee.

Article 6:Lessee may not claim the lessor for all expenses incurred by alteration, etc. of the number of pieces at will, in civil or criminal cases, and the lessee shall enter into an agreement to restore the area to its original state.

Article 7:Lessee may not arbitrarily transfer, transfer or sublease his right to the third party.

2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax and the income tax on the leased portion of the instant store, including the multiple revenues of the instant store operated by DD and KimE, but the income tax and the value-added tax on the leased portion of the said store were borne by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received and paid the income tax and the value-added tax on the multiple operation from D and KimE. This D and KimE voluntarily managed and disposed of the multiple revenue, excluding the rents and taxes paid to the Plaintiff.

3) On June 2010, the Plaintiff donated to five children, including the Intervenor, the building to which the instant store belongs, one-five shares, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the said five children.

4) On September 28, 2010, the Intervenor reported the instant store’s business at the place of business to “CC,” and subsequently completed the resting restaurant business report and business registration in the name of “ZZ” on April 22, 201, where the instant store is located at the place of business.

5) The rent for the remainder of the instant premises, excluding the instant stores, is as follows.

Trade Name (Name)

Date of commencement;

Area of a place of business (land size)

Deposit for lease on a deposit basis (0 thousand won)

Monthly rent (0,000 won)

GG hall (highH)

February 15, 2006

114.14

5,000

270

K K (L)

September 5, 2009

148.76

5,000

270

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by the above evidence in addition to the purport of the oral argument, i.e., the Multilateral Operation Contract of this case only 1,00,000,000,000,000 won, and 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's motion for intervention is illegal, and it is so decided as per Disposition.