No collection disposition against a nominal lender shall be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

Although it is alleged that a disposition of notice of payment without authorization is not an actual business operator, the fact that the Plaintiff is a nominal business operator unless he/she files an application for business registration and files a report, it cannot be deemed that it can be deemed that it can be found that it is improper to accurately investigate the facts.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 5, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that a collection disposition of value-added tax of KRW 94,291,700 against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2007 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. On March 20, 2007, the Plaintiff completed business registration for the business of FFdong 129-50, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, 129-50, and the business name of Jungwon, and the type of business as a construction business (a building site and an artificial arries), and filed a report on business closure on May 31, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business establishment”).

B. On January 25, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should pay the tax base of KRW 1.04,788,586 for the instant workplace, and that the payable tax amount of KRW 93,173,618 for the second period of value-added tax in 2007 was not paid even after filing a final tax return for the second period of value-added tax in 2007. On March 5, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to pay the said tax amount of KRW 94,291,70 for the second period of value-added tax (= KRW 93,173,618 + KRW 1,118,083) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition]: facts without dispute; evidence No. 5; the purport of each of subparagraphs 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant disposition is only a collection disposition for the collection of the tax determined by the Plaintiff’s report, and cannot be deemed as a taxation subject to revocation or invalidity confirmation. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

If a business operator did not pay the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of the tax payable, and the tax authority issued a notice of tax payment along with the additional tax paid for the failure to pay the tax amount, it is a combined disposition that orders the payment of the amount of the value-added tax confirmed by a business operator's report and the imposition and collection disposition of such additional tax (Supreme Court Decision 81Nu1313, Apr. 28, 1992). As seen earlier, the instant disposition is a combined disposition that is subject to administrative litigation by mixing the collection disposition that orders the payment of the amount of the value-added tax determined by the business operator's report and the amount of the tax payable for the second period of 207, but the Plaintiff did not pay the amount of the tax paid, and thus, the Defendant issued a notice of tax payment along with the amount of the tax reported by the business

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff merely lent the name of the Plaintiff upon the request from the head B, the wife of the largestA to lend its business registration due to the bad credit holder, and the actual business operator of the instant workplace is the largestCC. The instant disposition based on a different premise is null and void due to the significant and apparent defect.

B. Determination

(1) According to the principle of substantial taxation, the taxpayer should be confirmed by legal substance, not external appearance, and if there is a person to whom the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer. However, if there is a person to whom it actually belongs, it is merely the nominal title of the transaction subject to taxation, and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the claimant bears the burden of proof. According to the Gap's statements as well as the witness Kim Chang-soo's testimony (including various numbers), and the fact-finding's fact-finding as to the above EE Chang-ho (hereinafter referred to as "EE Chang-ho")'s testimony as well as the fact-finding's fact-finding as to 200,000,000,000 won, 30,000,000,000, 20,000,000,000,00,000,00,000.

(2) However, a taxation disposition made 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, but where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to be subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual basis that is not subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition that misleads the person subject to taxation of the fact subject to taxation cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course, even if the defect is serious, because it cannot be deemed apparent even if it is serious, (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). In addition, the value-added tax is a tax by the method of filing a return, and as a matter of principle, as a matter of principle, a taxpayer’s duty to pay taxes is determined specifically by the act of filing a return, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void due to a serious and apparent defect or by an unlawful act itself, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a collection disposition ordering the payment of taxes determined by the return act becomes void and void.

With respect to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire argument in the statement of the above facts and evidence Nos. 4 through 9 (including each number), i.e., the Plaintiff’s business registration has been completed in the name of the Plaintiff upon its own application for business registration, and the Plaintiff’s actual business operator did not supply goods or services at the instant workplace can only be identified as the fact-finding that the Plaintiff merely constitutes the title holder of business registration, and the actual business operator did not supply goods or services at the instant workplace. However, as seen earlier, it may be seen that the actual business operator at the instant workplace is the largestA and the Plaintiff merely lent the Plaintiff’s name to the largestA. However, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff did not report any defects in the instant business establishment on Nov. 10, 2005, the Plaintiff did not appear to be the Plaintiff’s actual business operator’s business registration under the name of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s actual business operator’s business registration under the name of the Plaintiff after completing the business registration under the name of the instant workplace. In light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff’s actual business operator cannot be seen as the Plaintiff’s duty to report.

4. Conclusion

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