early 2012 Heavy1372 (Law No. 18, 2012)

The disposition to impose value-added tax, etc. equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share on the ground that four persons are deemed to conduct joint business.

The plaintiffs have directly signed and sealed the trade partner column under the same business contract, and the share scope, rights, responsibilities and obligations, profit distribution, and early use of investment funds are considerably detailed. The plaintiffs are marked as a partnership business relationship and the provisional seizure application form. In light of the fact that one of the trade partners stated that the trade partner is the trade partner of the above business place, the plaintiffs also stated that the trade partner is the trade partner of the above business place, the disposition

Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap2295 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

LAA et al.

2 others such as the head of the Goyang Tax Office

March 12, 2013

April 16, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The imposition of value-added tax made on December 8, 201 by the head of the relevant World Trade Office, and the imposition of global income tax made on December 5, 201 by the head of the relevant tax office, and the imposition of global income tax made on December 7, 201 by the head of the relevant tax office, and the imposition of global income tax made on December 7, 201 by the head of the relevant tax office, and the imposition of global income tax made on December 7, 201 by the head of the relevant tax office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 201, Defendant Yangyang Tax Office conducted an investigation into trade order with the OO200 O-dong 00 O-dong Mayang-si (referred to as the “instant workplace” in this case) around Goyang-si and confirmed that KRW 000 of the said workplace was omitted, including the second credit card sales in 2010, and that the said employer received a tax invoice different from the facts of KRW 00 from theCC Energy Co., Ltd.

B. Accordingly, the head of Goyang Tax Office found that the instant workplace is operated in partnership with Nonparty E and the Plaintiffs, including Nonparty DoD, whose business name is Nonparty DoD, and notified them to Plaintiff Gab on December 7, 201, and notified Plaintiff Gab on December 8, 201, respectively, of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of December 201, and notified Plaintiff Ga of the correction and notification on December 8, 201, respectively, of the second period of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010, and notified the head of the Daejeon Tax Office, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of Plaintiff YB, the head of the tax office and the head of the Daejeon Tax Office having jurisdiction over

C. Accordingly, on December 5, 201, the director of the District Tax Office revised and notified the Plaintiff LA in 2010 global income tax amounting to 000, and the director of the Daejeon Tax Office in December 7, 201, global income tax amounting to 000 global income tax amounting to 2010 to Plaintiff ParkB in December 7, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the dispositions in this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry into the 1st and 2nd evidence (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading without dispute

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs merely lent the business funds of KRW 000 to SungE, an actual operator of the workplace of this case, and they are not partners of the workplace of this case, which are not excessive to the creditors of SungE, and prepare a partnership business contract in the name of the plaintiffs in order to guarantee the repayment of the above complex loans. Therefore, each disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiffs are partners of the workplace of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Determination

The issue of this case is whether the plaintiffs are partners of the workplace of this case, and the number of 3,00,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.