beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단114883

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As a result of conducting a tax investigation related to transaction order with the Plaintiff, the head of Mapo Tax Office determined that the tax invoice as follows (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) was issued even if the Plaintiff received or did not supply the goods or services among the tax invoices submitted at the first time value-added tax return for 2008 and 2009.

In the tax period of the former tax invoice of February 2008, 1 ethyl tax invoice of 2008 34,000,000 purchase tax invoice of 32,727,272 tax invoice of 680,000,000 tax invoice of 680,236,727,272 ethyl tax invoice of 34,000,000 ethyl tax invoice of 1,236,727, 272, 1 ethyl tax invoice of 209 △△ 680,000,000 ethyl tax invoice of 307,272,725 Gohap,272,272,725 257,99,9797

B. On October 28, 2010, the head of Mapo Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that the sum of KRW 11,794,709 and the value-added tax of KRW 92,285,863 will be imposed,00,572.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for the early determination of the tax base and tax amount to the head of Msan Tax Office. On November 8, 2010, the head of Msan Tax Office decided to impose KRW 19,723,506, value-added tax for 2008, value-added tax for 19,723,506, value-added tax for 109, value-added tax for 2009, KRW 72,562,357, and corporate tax for 20,858, 195, total of KRW 113,14,058, and additional tax for 44,706,110.

(hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”). C.

From November 8, 2010 to June 27, 2016, the head of Msan Tax Office received or collected KRW 157,850,150 in total from C, D, and E as well as penalty KRW 44,706,110.

The director of the tax office of Mapo filed an accusation against the plaintiff and the representative director of the plaintiff to the prosecutor's office under the suspicion of receipt of the transaction purchase statement.

Plaintiff

In addition, on August 26, 2011, F was subject to a disposition by the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office.

On the other hand, corporation B.