beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the “2013.....” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “2012.”; (b) the “human resource” in Part 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as “Internet”; and (c) the Defendant’s new argument in the trial is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2; and (d) thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Determination on new arguments made by the Defendant in the trial room
A. The gist of the assertion is that even if the Plaintiff is not the actual business owner of “C”, the Plaintiff, even though fully aware that his name would be used for his business rather than merely lending his name to the actual business owner, offered the Plaintiff’s name to lend his name to the Plaintiff’s bank account, etc. as well as the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an active distribution that prevents the Defendant from determining the actual taxpayer, and thus, the Plaintiff’s dispute over the disposition imposing global income tax of this case violates the principle of trust and good faith.
B. The application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law that strongly acts on the basis of the principle of legality under the principle of no taxation without law is only applicable to the case where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the legality is sacrificeed. In particular, if a taxpayer commits an act against his past speech and behavior against the tax authority, he would be subject to the deprivation of benefits, such as tax reduction and exemption under tax law, punishment by various additional taxes, penal provisions under tax law, etc., and the tax authority has the superior authority to conduct on-site investigations with respect to the taxpayer, and the burden of proof for the legality of taxation is against the tax authority in principle.