Whether additional tax may be imposed on a business operator who has filed a disguised registration

Even in the case of so-called disguised registration of business registration made under the name of another person, the penalty tax may not be imposed because there is no ground for imposing penalty tax as a sanction for disguised registration under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 22 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu347 delivered on January 29, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu85 delivered on October 28, 1987

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu601 delivered on October 15, 1987

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning Gap's neighboring tax and its defense tax is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are all dismissed.

Each appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court shall be assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the adopted evidence, found the following facts: (a) the plaintiff did not keep the account books, etc. prescribed in tax-related Acts (value-Added Tax Act, etc.) while operating a general amusement restaurant under the name of the non-party 1, etc. from February 25, 1976 to November 25, 1979; and (b) the defendant did not receive tax evasion reports from the plaintiff on February 9, 1981; (c) requested the plaintiff to submit account books and other documents; (d) the plaintiff was destroyed or lost; (e) the monthly revenue of each water working at the above ○○○ was almost the same; (e) the monthly revenue of the non-party 21977 and the monthly revenue of the non-party 3 for each 1979 year and the monthly revenue of the non-party 3 for each 1978 year 1979 year 1979 year 1979 year 1977 year 197.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the method of calculation of facts, incomplete hearing, or estimation of facts, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for this argument.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

(1) In light of the records, the court below's finding the number of waters who worked in the above ○○○ in 1977 and 1978 as stated in its holding is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

(2) Even in the case of so-called disguised registration of a business operator registered under another person's name, there is no ground for imposing additional tax as a sanction for disguised registration under the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu347 delivered on January 29, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu85 delivered on October 28, 1987).

In the same purport, the court below was just in holding that the defendant's disposition imposing additional tax was unlawful when the plaintiff made a disguised registration without registering his/her business under his/her name, and each of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion in 1977 and the first term portion in 1978, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground to charge this error.

(3) However, according to the record, it is clear that the rooted Tax and the defense tax of this case dated September 24, 1984 are the part to which they belong in the year 1976, and 1977.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination of the tax amount on the premise that the Gap tax of this case and the defense tax of this case belong to the year 1978 is illegal. The ground for appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Gap's probation tax and the same defense tax of Sep. 24, 1984 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal and the remaining appeal by the defendant are dismissed. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against each party's own expense and are assessed against the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)