The disposition to designate the plaintiff as a person jointly and severally liable for tax payment is legitimate.

It is reasonable to view the Plaintiff as a substantive joint business proprietor of the instant business, since the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract by lending the name of ParkB.

Article 25 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap16730 Revocation of a taxation disposition

O KimO

O Head of tax office

August 25, 2015

October 6, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000,000 for the second period of 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 7, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. ParkB, ParkB, SongCC, KimD, KimE, and headF entered into a contract for sale in lots other than OOOO on two lots of OOO-dong OO-type OO-type OO-type OO-type O-type O-O-type (hereinafter “instant contract for sale in lots”).

B. On November 22, 2006, the above five persons and above registered business with "OOOO group", "real estate leasing business", "real estate leasing business", and "YA et al. al. five business operators" by engaging in a joint lease business of real estate that entered into a contract for sale in lots as above (hereinafter "the project in this case").

C. From September 23, 2008 to October 13, 2008, SongCC, KimD, KimE, and DuF withdraw from the project in this case, and only the joint proprietor of the project in this case remains YA and ParkB.

D. On January 25, 2009, AA declared KRW 000,000 to the Defendant on January 25, 2008 as the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, but failed to pay KRW 000,000,000 within the due date.

E. Accordingly, on March 9, 2009, the Defendant: (a) designated ParkB, a joint proprietor of the instant business, as a joint and several tax obligor; and (b) notified ParkB of the value-added tax of KRW 000,000,000 for the second period of 208 (including additional taxes).

E. Since then, ParkB is the actual business operator of the instant business and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff merely entered into a sales contract under its name and registered business at the time of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff to be the actual business operator of the instant business through an investigation on the notice of payment of value-added tax; and (b) on January 3, 2013, on January 7, 2013, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the joint and several tax obligor of the instant value-added tax for the second period of 2008,000,000 won (including additional tax) as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is not a substantive joint business operator of the instant business since the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant sales contract, entrusted the name of the buyer to ParkB at the time of the instant sales contract, is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff is not a joint business operator of the instant business. Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax by designating the Plaintiff as a joint business operator on

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2, the plaintiff prepared a letter to the ParkB on Nov. 27, 2008 that "the plaintiff had concluded the sales contract of this case by lending the name of ParkB", and ParkB shall claim against the plaintiff that the plaintiff was operating the business of this case under the name of OOOOOOO branch of the OOO jointOO branch of the district court, and ParkB shall file a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the plaintiff was not a joint proprietor of the business of this case, and on Dec. 30, 2011, ParkB shall confirm that there was no joint business investment of the business of this case."

Considering that there is no evidence to deem that a person other than the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was in title trust to ParkB, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract by lending the name of ParkB and registered the business.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is not a joint businessman of the business of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.