Determination of the fact as to whether the name was given to the Corporation

Even before being investigated by the police on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the unpaid value added tax, the Plaintiff only lent the name of the business operator and made a statement to the actual business operator by the Plaintiff, etc. cannot be deemed evident in view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s husband stated in the actual business operator by △△.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, respectively.

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

1. The primary purport of the claim

Value-added tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, KRW 11,254,260 as of October 1, 2003, KRW 11,254,260 as of October 1, 2003, KRW 2,894,00 as of December 1, 2003, KRW 8,110,810 as of March 5, 2004 (it appears to be erroneous as of March 4, 2004), KRW 8,523,00 as of April 10, 200, KRW 6,904,09 as of September 6, 2004, KRW 30 as of October 13, 204, KRW 194 as of March 30, 209; and KRW 8,523,00 as of March 10, 204; and was imposed as of March 19, 2005.

2. Preliminary purport of claim

The imposition of each value-added tax on the primary claim shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

가. 최○○은 그의 처인 원고의 명의로 '△△조명'(등록번호 XXX-XX-XXXXX호)이라는 상호로 사업자등록을 하고(원고가 2000. 8. 29. 피고에게 직접 사업자등록신청서를 제출하였고, 그 후 사업자등록증 교부대장의 수령인란 및 수령확인란에 직접 서명한 후 사업자등록증을 수령해 갔다), ○○ ○구 ○동 X-XX에서 조명기구, 전기재료 등의 도·소매업을 하였다.

B. On July 29, 2004, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on July 29, 2004 against the head of ○○○ Police Station as a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, even though the Defendant imposed value-added tax (hereinafter “value-added tax imposition disposition of each case”).

C. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff stated that, at the time of the investigation by the police station on the suspected violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the unpaid value-added tax of this case, “the Plaintiff was registered as an individual entrepreneur from August 200 to the name of △△△ in order to sell lighting instruments and electrical materials.” However, on May 25, 2005, the prosecution stated that the above △△△△ in the above △△ in the name of the Plaintiff was merely lent the Plaintiff’s name to the ○○○, the Plaintiff, the husband of the Plaintiff, and at the time of the police investigation, the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff would have to pay taxes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the conjunctive claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the preliminary claim seeking revocation of the above imposition of value-added tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the previous trial procedure is not followed.

B. Determination

Where a person intends to file an administrative suit seeking a cancellation of the disposition of national taxes, he/she shall first undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The said request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt) on which he/she becomes aware that the relevant disposition was taken (Articles 61 and 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lawfully filed a request for examination or adjudgment within 90 days from the date

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual business operator of the above △△ assistance is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff's husband, and the plaintiff merely lent the business operator's name, and thus the defendant's disposition imposing each value-added tax is null and void.

B. Determination

(1) In order to make a disposition of taxation null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient. The defect is in violation of important laws and regulations and objectively apparent. In determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the pertinent disposition, should be considered as a teleologically and at the same time, a reasonable study on the specificity of the specific case itself is required. A disposition of taxation conducted by a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations, which are subject to taxation, should be deemed as serious and obvious, but if objective circumstances exist that make it possible to believe that the legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, which are not subject to taxation, are subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed as a rightful invalidation, even if it is serious, if it is apparent that the defect is subject to taxation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition of illegality, which misleads the fact of taxation, is not necessarily void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24986, Jul.

(2) Regarding the instant case, as seen earlier, there was a fact-finding that could at least be mistaken for the Plaintiff to be the actual business operator, who is the person liable for the imposition of each value-added tax of this case, because the business operator registration of △△△ in the name of the Plaintiff was made objective and external. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff was not the actual business operator of △△△, and did not participate in the management, such fact-finding can only be revealed after making an accurate investigation into the facts. Furthermore, even when the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was the actual business operator of △△△△△△ in the instant case on March 31, 2005, even when he was investigated by the police on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the unpaid value-added tax of this case on May 25, 2005, considering the fact that the Plaintiff only lent the name of the business operator, and the Plaintiff’s ○○○, the husband of the Plaintiff, stated in the actual business operator of △△△△.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the conjunctive claim among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.