(영문) 광주고등법원 1980. 8. 20. 선고 79구34 판결[법인세등부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Young Sosan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of tax office
July 9, 1980
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
For the Plaintiff
(1) The imposition of KRW 3,36,871 and penalty tax of KRW 333,688 and the imposition of KRW 333,688 among the imposition of KRW 1,307,01 and the imposition of KRW 1,307,01 and the penalty tax of KRW 130,701 which was imposed on June 3, 1978 and KRW 51,753 among the imposition of KRW 1,30,701 and the penalty tax of KRW 130,701 which was imposed on June 3, 1978 shall be revoked. The lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.
In full view of the evidence No. 1-1, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 8-1, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 9-2, evidence No. 10-1, evidence No. 20-1, evidence No. 20-2, evidence No. 20-3 (request for remittance of national funds and notice) of evidence No. 20-3, each of the above evidence No. 1-1, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 8-1, and evidence No. 9 (decision No. 1, 200), which is not disputed in the establishment, the defendant may not otherwise reduce the amount to the plaintiff as 3,905,775 won from the occasional corporate tax of June 3, 1978, as 1, 1977; 1,307,011 won from the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 2, 1977, 3010 won from each of the plaintiff's appeal.
However, the plaintiff's attorney asserts as follows.
In other words, the defendant (1) purchased from the non-party Naju-gun Agricultural Cooperative and did not keep the records in the account book, thereby treating the sales proceeds of KRW 1,426,920 as well as KRW 129,720 as well as KRW 1,426,920 as well as KRW 1,426,920 as well as the amount equivalent to the profit. (2) In addition, on the ground that the plaintiff offered the property owned by the non-party Naju-gun as security and borrowed KRW 30,000 as well as KRW 3,154,520 as profits but did not keep the assets in the account book, the defendant imposed a penalty of KRW 3,154,520 as income. (3) In addition, on the ground that the plaintiff did not borrow and dispose of the amount of KRW 14,00,000 as security at the Industrial Bank of Korea branch of Korea.
However, the plaintiff did not purchase the above (1) 940 Gaums of the above (2) (3) without recording it in the account book, and the defendant was found to have imposed the above tax. (1) The plaintiff owned and operated 2,700,000 Gaums of the above (2). (2) On July 4, 1977, the plaintiff sold 1,200 Gaums of the above (6,000 Gaums per 1,200,000 Gaums of the above (3) to the non-party 146 Gaums of the above (3) around August 24, 1977, and the defendant sold 146 Gaums to the non-party 140,560 Gaums of the above (4) to the non-party 140 Gaums of the above case on the ground that the plaintiff sold it to the non-party 1,500 Gaums of the above amount to the 17 Gaum.
However, since the Plaintiff did not own and operate two of the above (1) trucks, and only one of them was owned and operated, the part of KRW 1,800,000 for the truck profit of KRW 1,80,00 among them is illegal and despite the fact that the Plaintiff did not sell it to the persons outside the Dong, the Plaintiff recognized the above out-of-house sales and imposed the value-added tax as above. Accordingly, the part of KRW 517,525 in the disposition of the value-added tax in the above disposition of the value-added tax is illegal and thus seeking its revocation.
In this regard, the defendant asserted that the corporate tax and the value-added tax of this case were imposed in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and thus lawful.
Therefore, it is difficult to find the facts that the plaintiff had no dispute over the establishment of Gap's 1-2 (Account Statement) 2-3, No. 4-1-2, No. 7-2, No. 4-2, No. 7, No. 9-3, No. 7, No. 4-2, and No. 9-2, No. 7, No. 97, No. 9-2, No. 97, No. 97, No. 9, No. 7, No. 9, No. 2, and the defendant found the facts that the plaintiff had not received the above No. 1-7, No. 97, No. 2, No. 97, No. 2, No. 10-1, No. 7, No. 97, No. 9, No. 2, to find the facts that the plaintiff had received the above No. 1-7, No. 97, No.
The following facts are as to the legitimacy of value-added tax. The defendant calculated 10-2 of No. 10-2 (Supplementary Protocol) without dispute over each of the above facts, and found 10-1 of the total amount of No. 2 of No. 10 and No. 13 (Certificate No. 11, 12, and 13 (Certificate) as to non-party 2's profits and losses, and found 10-1 of the total amount of No. 40-7 of the above facts as to non-party 2's profits and losses during the tax period from 1977 to 31, 1977 that the plaintiff deducted 10-7's profits and losses from No. 40-77, Sep. 1, 197 and No. 2 of the above facts. 1977 that the non-party 2 had no amount of the above-party 1's profits and losses from No. 30-77, Dec. 2, 1977.
Therefore, both the imposition disposition of the corporate tax and the imposition disposition of the value-added tax against the plaintiff are legitimate. Therefore, each of the plaintiff's claims of this case seeking the revocation on the premise that each of the dispositions is unlawful, shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.
August 20, 1980
Judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)