Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2011Nu1196 (Law No. 30, 2012)

early 209 Heavy3926 (Law No. 9, 2010.29)

It is reasonable to see the lessor as the actual business owner because the lessor actively participated in the operation of the workplace.

(The main point of view) Although a workplace lease contract was concluded, it is reasonable to see the lessor as the actual business operator, since the lessor has the authority to determine and change the transaction partner and the sales items in the contract, and the lessor has actually changed the transaction partner, and the lessor has instructed the lessor to preserve the deficit of another workplace with the profits of the workplace, and has actively participated in the operation of the workplace by receiving regular reports on the details

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012du 13313 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Maximum XX

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) Decision 2011Nu1196 Decided May 30, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the argument on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final