Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap18543 (208.02)

National High Court Decision 2005Du1560 ( October 16, 2007)

Actual Business Operator of Company Operation

It is judged that the employee was registered as an executive officer rather than his/her name because he/she failed to pay a large amount of national tax and was registered in the name of an executive officer who is not his/her own name because he/she did not merely give specific instructions and approval to the employee in charge, but actually contributed the business fund.

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

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

제1심 판결을 취소한다. 피고 ○○세무서장이 2004. 12. 15. 원고 나AA과 황BB의 사업자등록명의 및 원고 나AA과 황BB, 이CC의 사업자등록명의를 각 원고 나DD로 변경한 처분을 모두 취소하고, 원고 나DD에 대하여, 피고 ☐☐세무서장이 2005. 1. 3. 한 부가가치세 2001년 271분 52,406,740원, 2002년 2기분 3,524,560원, 2003년 1기분 84,444,160원, 2005. 3. 2. 한 부가가치세 2004년 1기분 17,258,860원, 피고 ○○세무서장이 2005. 1. 17. 한 부가가치세 2002년 2기분 37,469,110원, 2003년 1기분 229,097,710원, 2003년 2기분 308,239,410원, 2002년 1기분 16,714,850원, 2002년 2기분 39,939,100원, 2003년 1기분 223,979,270원, 2003년 2기분 115,865,810원의 각 부과처분을 모두 취소한다.

1. Advice for a judgment of the court of first instance;

이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는 제2항과 같이 원고들의 주장에 대한 판단을 추가하고, 제1심 판결 제4쪽 제1행부터 제2행까지의 ○○ ☐☐구 611-26 대 8,021㎡를 ○○ ☐☐구 ☐☐동 611-26 대 8,021㎡ 로, 제7쪽 제9행부터 제10행까지 의 ★★★즈 주식회사 를 주식회사 ★★★즈 로, 제8쪽 표의 2002. 12. 30.자 주요내용 란 중 예약했습니다 를 계약했습니다 로, 제9쪽 표의 2003. 1. 6.자 주요내용 란 중 김EE 사정 을 김EE 사장 으로 각 수정하는 외에는 제1심 판결의 이유기재와 같으므로, 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

2. Additional determination

The plaintiffs asserted that they merely provided advice to each of the businesses in this case, and that they are not actual business owners of each of the businesses in this case since they did not participate in land acquisition, financing loans, construction orders, building permits, and sales affairs at the time of each of the businesses in this case. According to the above evidence, the plaintiffs asserted that they were not actual business owners of each of the businesses in this case. However, in light of the above evidence, it is insufficient to find that the plaintiff Eul was not the actual business owners of each of the businesses in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff Eul was not the actual business owners of each of the businesses in this case. Rather, in light of the above evidence, there is no evidence to support the facts that the plaintiff Eul was not the actual business owners of each of the businesses in this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff Na's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed as the plaintiff Na's claim of this case against the defendants of this case. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.