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

가. 원고는 2001. 7. 10.부터 서울 중구 ○○동 48-3 소재 ★★상가 42호에서 '☆☆모아'라는 상호로 의류 도ㆍ소매업을 영위하는 개인사업자이다.

B. On January 16, 2007 to April 19, 2007, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact that merchants issued or received the sales and purchase tax invoices to be voluntarily reported to each business entity under the initiative of tax agent, etc. using the actual sales and purchase data.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from the second to the first period of February 2006, received a different purchase tax invoice as stated in the column for the correction or increase in the amount of tax in the separate sheet (hereinafter “purchase tax invoice of this case”) and deducted the Plaintiff from the input tax amount. On February 10, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that the purchase tax return was omitted during the second period of February 10, 2006, and confirmed that the Plaintiff was corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the aggregate of KRW 66,90,510 for the said 11 taxable period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence, Eul 1-13 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Purchase transaction on the instant purchase tax invoice is an cross-market transaction with the sales tax invoice in each of the pertinent taxable periods. Accordingly, the supply price of the sales corresponding to the instant purchase tax invoice shall be deducted from the tax base, and at least the sales amount shall be determined by the estimation method.

(2) The Defendant imposed value-added tax on a merchant who filed a revised return among the merchants in the same place as the Plaintiff for three taxable periods, but imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff for 11 taxable periods only on the ground that he did not file a revised return. This contradicts the principle of tax equity.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiff's first proposal is replaced by the plaintiff's first proposal

According to the provisions of Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007), where a tax invoice under Article 16 has not been issued, or where all or part of the entries necessary for the issued tax invoice have not been entered or has been entered differently from the fact, an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount even if the taxpayer was actually supplied with the goods or services. However, in the case of a sales declaration, if the taxpayer voluntarily filed a return on sales, it is reasonable to deem that such sales had been actually made. Even if there was no actual sales, the portion reported by the taxpayer as the sales in the value-added tax, which is the tax method by which the return was filed, is finalized as it is (if the tax payer filed a return on sales amount, the taxpayer shall take the procedure of request for reduction, etc.), and the reported portion as the sales amount shall not be deemed to have been deducted from the total sales amount under the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du917

In light of these legal principles, inasmuch as the part reported by the Plaintiff as the sales was finalized during the period from the second to the first period from 2001 in 2006, even if there was no actual sales, it cannot be accepted even if the Plaintiff asserted that the sales declaration transaction should be deducted from the tax base due to the transaction of processing, and the assertion that the sales should be re-determined by the method of an estimate investigation is also without merit.

(2) The plaintiff's second proposal is replaced by the plaintiff.

In the case of this case, the tax authority first issued a revised disposition for three taxable periods for the merchants who reported a revised tax return in consideration of the manpower situation, etc., and it does not seem to have waived taxation for the remaining taxable periods. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of tax equity solely on the basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Plaintiff

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.