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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On July 30, 2004, the Plaintiff registered his business from Balbale Bright-Bale Brone Brone Bront, Bront, Bront, Bront, Bront, Bront, Bront (hereinafter “instant business”). On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of supplying drinking water, fruit, suspension, etc. to the PC, etc. (hereinafter “instant business”). < Amended by Act No. 13373, Apr. 30, 2015>

B. From November 19, 2014 to December 31, 2014, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation of value-added tax for the instant workplace from the second period to the first period of 2009 to December 1, 2014, determined that KRW 13,683,915,378 was deposited in relation to the instant business with the account in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s under the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s title, and determined that the amount was KRW 239,265,087 and value-added tax amount of KRW 1,222,40,355 (hereinafter “instant entry amount”) remaining after deducting the sales incentive from the said amount from KRW 239,265,07 and value-added tax amount of KRW 1,222,409,355 (hereinafter “value”).

C. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed the amount of KRW 6,195,409,671, which is the difference between the amount entered in the instant case and the Plaintiff’s return amount of value-added tax, as the amount omitted in sales at the instant place of business, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff in 209 to KRW 1,061,386,7331 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but was dismissed by the Defendant on June 5, 2015, and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 16, 2015, but was dismissed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 23 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant calculated the tax base by means of estimation pursuant to the proviso of Article 57(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and simply grasping the amount deposited by the account in the name of the Plaintiff and Park ParkA as sale is unlawful since it did not comply with the estimation method under the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2) Of those who deposited money with a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff or ParkA, there are many persons, other than the Plaintiff’s counterpart to the transaction, and even if those who deposited money is the counterparty as the PC operator, all the amount of money deposited does not relate to the Plaintiff’s business. Given the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s business, most of the transaction of money per 10,000 won or less is irrelevant to the instant business.

A) In order to secure and maintain business partners, the Plaintiff frequently lent money to business partners. Of the instant subscription amount, KRW 3,034,000,000 is related to the lending of money to business partners, and such lending should be excluded from sales.

B) The Plaintiff’s transaction partners may request a purchase agency for slots containers, coolings, beverage self-markets, electronic rails, and hot meat on the condition that the Plaintiff purchases miscellaneous goods supplied by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff inevitably responded to the above request of the transaction partner in order to secure and maintain the transaction partner. The annual maximum of KRW 60 million is deposited in connection with the above purchase agency business, and this should also be excluded from sales.

3) Among the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the customer, the Plaintiff is a duty-free duty-free goods. Since the sales of a single place accounts for 1% of the Plaintiff’s total sales, this ought to be excluded from the sales that serve as the basis for calculating value-added tax.

4) The Plaintiff, while submitting the content of 17 credit cards to the Defendant, requested a deduction of the input tax amount of KRW 23,783,00 corresponding to the portion used, the Defendant did not accept such request on the grounds that evidence is insufficient. However, it is against the rule of experience that using the credit card for the personal purpose of five years is against the rule of experience, and thus, the said amount should be deducted.

5) Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks the revocation of the part of the instant disposition in excess of the amount stated in the order corresponding to the legitimate tax amount.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion that the method of estimation was not observed

Article 57 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall investigate the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax to be paid or refundable, and determine or correct it. Article 57 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "Where the head of a tax office, etc. having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment examines the tax base and the amount of tax to be paid or refundable for each preliminary return period and for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), and determines or correct it, he/she shall be based on tax invoices, import tax invoices, account books, or other supporting documents." Article 57 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "other supporting documents" shall include transaction details deposited in the financial account. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the financial transaction details of the plaintiff and ParkA is legitimate by the field investigation method under the main sentence of Article 57 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit

2) Determination as to the assertion that all deposited money is not due to the plaintiff's business

A) Relevant legal principles

Inasmuch as the tax authority bears the burden of proving the fact of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing tax, the taxpayer’s account constitutes sales or revenue, and the tax requirement requirement is a principle that the tax authority bears the burden of proving that the amount deposited in the account of a financial institution. However, the fact that the amount deposited in the account of a financial institution by a taxpayer constitutes sales or revenue can be proved by either disclosing the fact that can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process or reveal indirect facts that can be acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14284, Apr. 27, 2004). In such a case, whether such presumption can be determined should be based on the following circumstances: (a) whether the relevant financial institution’s account was used as a principal deposit or management account for sales or revenue; (b) whether it has a separate type of sales or revenue from the account; (c) the proportion of sales or revenue-related transactions to funds for other than sales or revenue; and (d) whether such amount deposited in the account or general account constitutes an individual account deposit or revenue type.

B) Determination as to whether the instant amount was derived from a loan of KRW 3,034,000,000 out of the amount entered

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that it was due to a monetary loan of KRW 3,034,00,000 among the input amount of this case, and submitted a factual confirmation (Evidence 2-1 through 33), a transaction confirmation (Evidence 3-3 through 9). However, the plaintiff failed to submit a disposal document such as a monetary loan contract, and failed to disclose specific terms and conditions of the loan, such as the date and time of the loan, the due date and time of repayment, the agreement on interest, etc., and the details of financial transactions corresponding to the payment of the loan, the principal or the repayment of interest are not specifically indicated. However, among the input amount of this case, although the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, it is difficult to view that the amount is related to a monetary loan of KRW 3,034,00,000, as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

C) Determination as to the assertion that the amount of the instant entry includes the amount of money by proxy for purchase

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not present any evidence to support the above argument, and it is merely that the amount of money related to the purchase agency reaches KRW 60 million per annum by the plaintiff's own effort. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

D) Determination as to whether the amount of the instant entry includes money difficult to be seen as sales in light of the date of deposit, the other party, and the amount, etc.

In light of the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as a whole, the pertinent amount entered into the instant business is deemed to have been sales related to the instant business, but on the other hand, it appears that considerable portion of the amount entered into the instant business is not deemed to have been sales related to the instant business in light of the date of deposit, the other party, and the amount. As such, the amount of entry irrelevant to the instant business is deemed to exist over the taxable period prior to the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s entire amount of entry was the Plaintiff’s sales.

① During the taxable period, the Defendant identified the entire amount of money deposited in the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s sales without examining specifically whether there is an appearance that can be seen as the Plaintiff’s sales in light of the date of deposit, the other party, and the amount.

② During the taxable period, the Defendant deemed 136 cases of KRW 240,195,323 of the money deposited in the passbook in the name of ParkA, which was not the Plaintiff’s sales, and understood the remaining money as the Plaintiff’s sales. The criteria to determine whether the money is included in the Plaintiff’s sales are unclear, and rather, there is room to regard the money as the Plaintiff’s sales in light of the other party’s nature that can be inferred into the Plaintiff’s payment statement.

③ The Defendant also recognized that the transaction of the “depositer’s revocation fee” and “194,169 won for entrance fee” cannot be deemed to be a sale due to the Plaintiff’s business (see e.g., e., 3 No. 26, Nov. 22, 2017).

④ Based on the tax invoice related to the instant place of business, the Defendant: (a) identified whether a person who deposited money in the account under the name of the Plaintiff or Park ParkA is the Plaintiff’s trading partner; and (b) submitted it as reference materials 3 on November 22, 2017. According to the aforementioned reference materials 3, a number of persons who deposited money in the account under the name of the Plaintiff or ParkA was not verified through the transaction partner.

⑤ According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, due to the nature of the instant business, the Plaintiff’s sales seems to have been roughly KRW 00,000,000 on a one-time basis, and less than KRW 0,000 on a one-time basis. The amount of the Plaintiff’s sales, i.e., the amount of the purchase that does not meet such standards, or the amount of the purchase that is less than KRW 0,000,00, is likely to not

④ From July 2, 2009 to April 5, 2012, thisB deposited KRW 196,852,004 in total. The most deposited amount exceeds KRW 1,000,000,000, and the deposited amount is less than KRW 00,000,000,000. As such, the deposited amount of this BB is highly likely to be irrelevant to the instant business. The same applies to KimCC, KimD, Park E-E, and Park F (see, e.g., the preparatory document submitted by the Plaintiff on January 13, 2017).

7) A considerable number of deposits are made only once among the instant entry amounts. There are many deposits that appear to have been irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s business, such as △△ Kindergartens (Reference Materials No. 3. 228) and △△△○○○○○ (Reference Materials No. 3. 3, 300). A single deposit amount reaches KRW 90,136,000 (Reference Materials No. 347).

3) Determination as to the assertion that sales of a single-duty-free shop should be excluded

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not present any evidence supporting the above argument at all, and it is merely presumed that the sales amount of a single site is 1% of the total sales amount without any special ground. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is rejected.

4) Determination on the assertion that the input tax amount corresponding to the portion of credit card use should be deducted

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is seeking to deduct the input tax amount of value-added tax when submitting the details of purchase by credit card. However, the Plaintiff failed to disclose what relationship the details it purchased with the instant business establishment at the time of the instant disposition. As long as the Plaintiff’s purchase details of credit card include purchase unrelated to the instant business, which is not related to the instant business under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Defendant’s failure to deduct the input tax amount of credit card as alleged by the Plaintiff is acceptable.

5) Scope of revocation

In a case where a party cannot calculate the legitimate amount of tax to be imposed lawfully because he/she failed to submit objective tax base and tax amount until the closing of pleadings, the entire taxation disposition should be revoked. In such a case, the court does not have the duty to identify the amount of tax to be imposed actively by the person liable for tax payment and calculate the reasonable amount of tax to be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28, 1995).

In light of the above legal principles, we examine the case. As seen earlier, it is unlawful that the defendant identified a considerable number of inputs which cannot be seen as the plaintiff's sales as the plaintiff's sales, and then made the disposition of this case. The evidence submitted by the closing date of the argument of this case cannot be calculated with the legitimate value-added tax that the plaintiff is liable to pay. Thus, the disposition of this case shall be revoked in its entirety

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.