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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition is as follows (the plaintiff sought revocation against the plaintiff on the premise that there was a disposition to reduce the amount of alcoholic beverages, but the other party to the above disposition to reduce the amount of alcoholic beverages seems to be each company listed in the attached Table 1).

A. On April 24, 2004, the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the liquor wholesale business after obtaining a comprehensive alcoholic beverage wholesale business license from the Defendant, and the comprehensive alcoholic beverage wholesale license from the Plaintiff stipulates the designation condition that the license shall be revoked when the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the non-licensed seller.

나. oo지방국세청은 2014. 4. 10.부터 2014. 5. 29.까지 원고의 2011. 1. 1.부터2013. 12. 31.까지 사이의 주류유통과정 추적조사를 실시하여, 원고가 ① 2011년 2기와2012년 1기에 주류판매면허정지처분을 받은 주식회사 WWWW(2014. 1. 15. QQQQ주식회사에서 상호가 변경되었다, 이하 'WWWW'라 한다)에 주류를 공급하고 세금계산서를 미교부(457,660,000원)하고, 또한 명의를 대여하여 세금계산서를 가공교부(457,660,000원)한 금액이 2011년 2기와 2012년 1기의 주류매출금액 대비 1000분의100 이상이며, ② 2013년 중 무면허자인 'ooo', 'ooo', 사업장에주류를 공급(7,102,000원)하여 지정조건을 위반하였고, ③ 2013년 중 'oo횟집' 등에세금계산서를 과다교부(43,797,000원)하고, 'ooo' 등에 세금계산서를 과소교부(67,329,000원)하였으며, 'ooo' 등에 세금계산서를 미교부(8,344,000원)하였다는 등의 이유로 2014. 6. 18. 원고에게 세무조사 결과를 통지하였다.

C. On September 5, 2013, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to a person who has no license for alcoholic beverage sales within the period from October 18, 2013 to December 13, 2013, respectively, at least 10% [2: 16.1% (4,831,824 ± 2,820,328,755 ± 15%: 15.9% (460,48,362 ± 2,897,41,064)]; from October 18, 2013 to December 13, 2013, the Defendant revoked the license for alcoholic beverage sales business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant revocation lawsuit, and, on September 18, 2014, rendered a decision to suspend execution that “the validity of the instant revocation disposition is suspended until the instant judgment is pronounced” by this court as 2014A310.

E. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a stay of execution as above, the Defendant notified each company listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is the purchaser of the Plaintiff, to reduce the volume of alcoholic beverages by 50% until the date when the instant judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant reduction disposition”), pursuant to Article 91(3) of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 1966, Jan. 1, 2013) and Article 3 of the Notice on the Standard of Quantities of Shipments for Duplicative Manufacturers, importers, and sellers of alcoholic beverages (Notice No. 2012-23, Jun. 29, 2012).

F. On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition of revocation, but was dismissed on April 4, 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 12, 13 (including various numbers, 2014Guhap2936; hereinafter the same shall apply); Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 22 (2014Guhap3137); the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the instant disposition of revocation

① The Plaintiff employed 6 staff members of WW who are unable to engage in the business due to the suspension of the license for alcoholic beverage sales, and sold alcoholic beverages to the existing transaction office of WW by taking over 1st vehicle of WWW in the middle and high-class sales market. The Plaintiff did not enter into a name lending agreement with WW or received the name lending fee from WW. Since the former W W W business operator’s sales proceeds belong to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have supplied alcoholic beverages in WW or lent its name, and it cannot be deemed that the relevant tax invoice was not issued or processed.

② The Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to ssss who run the EE Packaging Center with a license for alcoholic beverage sales. According to the sales method of the Indoor Packaging Center, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to sss who run the said ss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages to those who did not obtain a license for alcoholic beverage sales.

③ Even if the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed licensee, the disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license for alcoholic beverage sales business is merely 0.119% of the total sales.

2) As to the reduction disposition of this case

Since the disposition of revocation of this case is unlawful as described in the above paragraph (1), the reduction disposition of this case, which is based on the premise that the disposition of this case is lawful, is also unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the instant disposition of revocation

A) Whether the name is nominal or not

Evidence and Evidence Nos. 16, 17, and Nos. 2 through 10 (2014Guhap2936)

In addition to the purport of the argument of each regional tax office, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 6, 3, 1, 1, 6, , 3, 1, 3.

However, each evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 11 through 14, 19, 23, 25 (2014Guhap2936)

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the name in WW during the period of suspension of the license and supplied alcoholic beverages as non-data, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (no suspicion) as to the suspected crime, including “the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s name to WT from November 25, 201 to March 31, 2012, supplying alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 457,660,093 without issuing tax invoices, and issuing a false tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of 257 selling companies of WT.” On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was also subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (no charge) as to the suspected crime, including “the Plaintiff was accused of non-prosecution on the grounds similar to the Plaintiff.”

② RR in the prosecution investigation of the above criminal case, shall become the plaintiff and shall be three months.

After being employed by the plaintiff, YY stated that "the previous WT had been managed by the employees of the Busan Regional Tax Office" and stated that "Doo and Doo were employed by the plaintiff in disguised employment, and they did not provide alcoholic beverages in W." On February 28, 2013, YY was dismissed from the plaintiff on February 28, 2013, and then received a summary order of 2 million won for the above facts constituting an offense, and the credibility of the statement made by the Doo Regional Tax Office was reduced, and when considering the contents and circumstances of each of the above statements made by the plaintiff during the period of service, the possibility that the plaintiff could have been employed by the plaintiff 6, including TTR, even if he/she did not return to the plaintiff 6, in accordance with the above direction of employment.

③ Although six persons, including RR, enter November 16, 201, were not paid on a daily basis even though they retired on February 17, 2012, there is a possibility that it would result in an agreement with the Plaintiff to work only for three months at the beginning.

④ With respect to the bonus deposited in the accounts of WWW’s accounting SS, Nn stated that “n returned the useful amount during the period of WW’s employment”, and mm was “amount generated during WW’s employment”, and the said bonus was returned in entirety after the deposit.

5. The Plaintiff’s six payment, including RR, and four major insurance, oil, automobile tax, employee bonus, etc.

Although a document was found that the content of the document was separately arranged, it is acceptable to accept that if the plaintiff employed six persons such as RR for a limited period of three months, their salaries need to be separately managed from the existing employees.

④ Around the beginning date of the period of suspension of WW’s license, the Plaintiff purchased one of the used vehicles of WW through Jink-gu, but had sold the above used vehicle again to Jin-gu, around the expiration of the period of suspension of license, but at the time of termination of the period of suspension of license, it was actually paid the purchase price and the tax invoice was also issued in the process of selling the above used vehicle, and it does not seem that the used vehicle of WW re-sale returned to W again.

7. Any materials that deem that the price for the name lending between the Plaintiff and W was paid.

However, since there is no amount of money deposited from the previous business partner of WW in the Plaintiff’s account, the profit and loss accrued from the business activities such as RR, etc. during the period of suspension of WW seems to have been reverted to the Plaintiff.

B) The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s employee violated the conditions of designation of alcoholic beverage sales business license on the ground that the Plaintiff’s employee directly prepared and managed a document in the title “Oo”, “Oo”, and “spoo” without a license for alcoholic beverage sales within the EE EE packing center. However, the Plaintiff’s entry in the title of “O”, “Oo”, and “O” are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages directly to the Plaintiff when considering the way of business operation of the package center in which each co-owner operated each small store. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C) Sub-decision

Therefore, the revocation disposition of this case is unlawful, as the grounds for each disposition described in the above paragraphs (a) and (b) are not recognized.

2) As to the reduction disposition of this case

As seen earlier, as long as the instant disposition of revocation is unlawful, the instant disposition of reduction based on the premise that the instant disposition of revocation is lawful cannot be recognized as the grounds for such disposition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, all of them shall be accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition.