배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 5, 2010, the Plaintiff registered its business with a trade name C, but closed the business on June 18, 201.
Based on the tax invoice issued by C or issued by C, the Defendant notified C of the total value-added tax amount of KRW 92,314,530 as listed below.
The amount of tax notified for the first time of payment (unit: won) on September 30, 201, the first time of payment (unit: KRW 92,314,530 on November 15, 2010, November 11, 201, 31, 35, 186, 300 on March 35, 201; KRW 186, 300 on April 25, 201; KRW 92,314,530 on October 31, 201.
B. On May 27, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the total amount of KRW 127,660,400 (the amount including additional tax, etc.) of value-added tax on C to the Defendant, who is the seizure authority, who reported the amount of credit as the amount of credit, to the amount of actual dividends of KRW 3,929,48 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
The plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends on the date of distribution.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion C, all tax invoices issued in the name of the Plaintiff are issued by D by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant’s taxation that imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff regarding C is null and void as a matter of course, and the demand for distribution based thereon is also unreasonable. As such, the Defendant’s taxation that imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff is also unreasonable, the amount of dividend to the Defendant should be deleted, and the amount of dividend to the Plaintiff should be corrected to KRW 3,929,488.
B. First, we examine whether D issued all tax invoices of C by stealing the name of the Plaintiff.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4, as a whole, D’s report of value-added tax from the above court on June 30, 2014 in the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Go-Ma418, Jun. 30, 2014 (108,40,000 won for each purchaser.