Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

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

(1) On March 10, 2003, the Plaintiff obtained a comprehensive liquor wholesale license from the Defendant to wholesale electric beverages except general consignment and spirits.

(2) On April 13, 2006, the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an illegal Japanese control over the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ operated by Kim Jin, and discovered and kept the documents and books that contain the details of payment by receiving orders from restaurants or entertainment taverns, even though Kim Jin was a business operator who is not able to handle alcoholic beverages other than domestic alcoholic beverages. The Defendant became aware of the fact that Kim Jin was the Plaintiff’s seller of alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverage sales in the name of the Plaintiff, computerized output of the Plaintiff’s transaction documents and alcoholic beverage sales statement, the details of payment payments for alcoholic beverages and supply prices and value added taxes, and the details of sales orders for alcoholic beverages paid to the Plaintiff as alcoholic beverages, by day, and by day.

(3) The Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff and confirmed the following:

(1) An omission of sale of KRW 62,576,947: An omission of sale of the class by force.

(2) Issuance of tax invoices of KRW 2,316,476,622 which are different from the fact: With respect to alcoholic beverages supplied to Kim Jong-jin who is identified as an unlicensed intermediary wholesale, sales tax invoices shall not be issued as ○○ commercial; and the details of issuance of sales tax invoices directly from 94 business entities, who are customers of ○○ commercial company, and confirmation of the reported details.

(3) The calculation of processed benefits of KRW 5,000,000: Three persons’ benefits, such as Kim○-moo, Kim○-young, and Cho Jong-kin, who are workers of Kim○-jin, shall be treated as the Plaintiff company’s benefits, and the corporate tax under

(4) According to the results of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Regional Tax Service, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 9,642,220 for the first period of March 12, 2007, value-added tax of KRW 4,246,70 for the second period of the second period of the year of 2004, value-added tax of KRW 7,913,390 for the second period of the year of 2005, value-added tax of KRW 6,781,90 for the second period of the year of 2005, value-added tax of KRW 3,986,050 for the first period of the year of 206, and KRW 8,328,690 for the corporate tax of KRW 205 for the year of 205 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(5) On April 2, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the National Tax Tribunal for an adjudication under the Presidential Decree No. 2007Du1863 on April 2, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed all the Plaintiff’s petition on November 1, 2007.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap 1-3, Eul 1-3, and 21 (including additional numbers)

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff traded a domestic alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 340,615,436 during the first period from 2004 to 1, 2006, but did not have any transaction of alcoholic beverages for entertainment business. This is clear in light of the fact that the Plaintiff traded a domestic alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 340,615,436 between the first period of 200, and there was no transaction of alcoholic beverages for entertainment business in the list held by the National Tax Service, and that the documents kept in custody are not related to alcoholic beverages for entertainment drinking, and that the second period of 2005, which was computerized from the Plaintiff corporation, was carried out by Kim Jin-jin's Dok-jin while working in the Plaintiff company, was merely carried out in the ○○ company for confirmation of transaction details and outstanding amount. In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff submitted a confirmation document to reverse it by a national tax official from 6 business partners of ○○○ in the process of tax investigation, the Defendant's disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff issued the instant tax invoice was unlawful.

(2) As long as the prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office prosecuted the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the Plaintiff’s company and the Plaintiff’s representative, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff issued the tax invoices that amounting to KRW 198,736,30 in total to KRW 124 times from March 28, 2005 to May 31, 2006, 124, “The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a false entry of the tax invoice by sales place as if the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff to the customer,” the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff issued tax invoices amounting to KRW 2,316,476,622. Even if the Plaintiff issued the tax invoices falsely, the amount should be considered as KRW 198,736,300, which was charged by the gold metal.

(3) In light of the original collection receipt and monthly salary income tax prepared by the Plaintiff, etc., since the Plaintiff’s workers are clear, Kim Il-il, Gim Young-young, and Gan-dong workers, the instant disposition based on the premise that the said workers are Kim Il-jin’s workers is unlawful.

(4) As long as the prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office imposed a non-suspect on the charge of omitting sales on the Plaintiff corporation and the representative of the Plaintiff corporation, the instant disposition on the premise of omitting sales on the Plaintiff corporation and the representative of the Plaintiff corporation was unlawful.

(b) the relevant regulations;

Article 16 (Ground Taxation for Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) At the time the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not submit all books, including alcoholic beverage sales data, on the grounds of deletion due to computer error.

(2) As to the mechanical records of the work set up by Kimjin-jin, the sum between the 1,100,000 won to the 1,200,000 won to the 1,200,000 won to the 1,200,000 won to the 1,250,000 won to the 1,40,000 won to the 1,250,000 won to the 1,400,000 won to the 1,200,000 won to the 1,200,000 to March 204, the sum of these salaries to the 1,60,000 won to the 1,250,000 won to the 2,250,000 won to the 2,200,000 won to the ○○ account to the ○○ account.

(3) As a result of an investigation into six business parties who supplied alcoholic beverages for an entertainment drinking club by Kim Jin-jin, the said business parties ordered Kim Jin-jin to purchase alcoholic beverages for an entertainment drinking club, and the price was paid by cash 8 or by depositing them in the account book for an alcoholic beverage transaction opened in the name of Kim Jin-jin, or by depositing them in the account book for an alcoholic beverage transaction opened in the name of the liquor company. Alcoholic beverages were delivered to the Plaintiff’s employees

(4) The transaction specification file for each business establishment prepared by Kim Jin-jin is under the name of the Plaintiff, but the transaction date includes the sales volume, purchase price, and purchase amount of alcoholic beverages and food for entertainment taverns by transaction date, and the client president, etc. have signed to confirm the transaction details. On the other hand, the order file for each transaction date includes the order quantity and amount of alcoholic beverages and food for each transaction partner on the transaction date.

(5)The computerized output data on the second term of 2005 supply price and value added tax for each customer in the name of the plaintiff, which was reported by Gimjin, are the alcoholic beverage sales data for the pertinent taxable period with respect to the 94 business parties of Kim Jin, which is consistent with the business parties in the above statement of transactions.

(6) Between January 15, 2004 to May 26, 2006, out of Gimjin's bank account, KRW 826,305,00 per share was withdrawn and paid to the Plaintiff.

(7) The policy holder and the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the transportation of alcoholic beverages (Seoul 85S.902, Seoul 80No3295) in the name of the Plaintiff are all Kim○-jin, the name of the deposit account on a small notice drawn up to be used at the time of the order of alcoholic beverages is Kim○-jin, and the mobile phone number of ○○ commercial office or Kim○-jin is both the mobile phone number.

(8) In the sales status prepared by the Plaintiff, 8899 code is written on the place where the customer should be stated. The Plaintiff also filed a complaint against the Plaintiff that he embezzled the money that ○○○○ was deposited as an employee of the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff submitted a detailed statement that ○○ was paying the amount of alcoholic beverages (the head of the high court stated that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages in trust with the coefficient table presented by the Kang○○, but the head of the office stated that he received alcoholic beverages by deceiving the Plaintiff by failing to pay the revenue table).

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-3, 6-15, 18, 20, Eul 1-29 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) Generally, in the case of the revocation of disposition imposing tax, the burden of proof as to the facts requiring taxation should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, the other party cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements unless the pertinent facts are proven to be eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 2007). Meanwhile, in criminal litigation, the prosecutor must present the evidence that the facts constituting the crime are found to be the same as the defendant's indictment is unreasonable, and even if the defendant's indictment is the same as the defendant's indictment is unreasonable, it cannot be deemed to be disadvantageous to the defendant, and the facts constituting the crime must be proven to have the judge a high probability to the extent that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163 Decided November 30, 2007)

(2) According to the above facts, the sales statement of Kimjin-jin is written with the order details of alcoholic beverages for each restaurant and entertainment business establishment; transportation vehicle under the plaintiff's name (Seoul 85 S.S. 902, Seoul 80No3295) is Kim Jin and Kim Jin paid insurance premium; the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is an employee of the restaurant and entertainment business establishment purchased alcoholic beverages and that the Kim Jin-jin is an employee of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not submit data related to the labor contract such as the head of the Tong where labor contract and wages were paid; the plaintiff did not directly submit the documents related to the labor contract such as the head of the Tong where the labor contract and wages were paid; the plaintiff's ○○○○-2's account that was written with the notice of deposit of alcoholic beverages; the plaintiff's account that was written with Kim Jjin-jin-2's account that was written with the plaintiff's instructions of deposit of alcoholic beverages; the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's direct sales of alcoholic beverages was not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff's independent employee's account.

(3) Therefore, all of the instant dispositions premised on this premise are lawful.

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.