2. The plaintiff Lee A's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked each imposition of value-added tax listed in the separate sheet of value-added tax, each imposition of individual consumption tax listed in the separate sheet of individual consumption tax, and each imposition of education tax listed in the separate sheet of education tax, against each individual on the same day. On the same day, each imposition of income tax listed in the separate sheet of income tax against each individual on the same day (the correction of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, and February 8, 2012 stated in the separate sheet of income tax, seem to be written in each clerical error of June 1, 2012).

A. From January 1, 2006, the Plaintiffs jointly with Nonparty D, operate EE clubs (hereinafter “EEE”) located in OOO-6 o. From 1, 2006 to 60 OO. The director of Central Regional Tax Office conducted an individual integrated investigation on the Plaintiffs from April 5, 2012 to May 14, 2012. The director of Central District Tax Office, who transferred Plaintiff EE 25% of the EE’s equity interest, secured the EE’s daily sales details, daily settlement statement, and the monthly settlement statement of EE in U.S. U.S. MF’s U.C. from the FF’s office. After that, the director of Central District Tax Office reported the Defendant of the aggregate amount of OE’s revenue paid to the said EE EE as OOOO, and notified the Defendant of the total amount of OO’s sales revenue.

B. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff, the representative of EE, the total amount of OOO in the total amount of annual income tax for 1,2, 2008, 1,209, 1, 2010, and 2010, and individual consumption tax and education tax for 2008 through 2010, on the same day, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff EOO in the global income tax for 2008 to 2010, and the Plaintiff EOO in the global income tax for 2008 to 2010 from 2008 to 2010 to the Plaintiff EOOO in the global income tax for 2008 and the Plaintiff UCC respectively.

C. On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the imposition of value-added tax, individual consumption tax, and education tax, and on August 10, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the service charges paid towawaer on January 9, 2013 should be deducted from the tax base on the grounds that the service charges were not included in the EE sales. Upon the decision of the Tax Tribunal on February 8, 2013, the Defendant reduced the amount of the individual consumption tax, individual consumption tax, education tax, as stated in the separate sheet of education tax (hereinafter referred to as “disposition imposing global income tax, etc.”), and on the same day, the comprehensive income tax was reduced as stated in the separate sheet of income tax (hereinafter referred to as “disposition imposing global income tax, etc.” as stated in the separate sheet of education tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a request for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax is lawful.

A. Defenses before the merits

The part of the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of global income tax disposition is unlawful because it did not go through the procedure of the preceding trial.

B. Determination

On the other hand, the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the national tax disposition, unlike the discretionary transfer principle of administrative appeals applied to the general administrative litigation, must undergo a prior trial procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and any administrative litigation brought without going through such legitimate prior trial procedure is unlawful. According to the above, even though it is recognized that the Plaintiff had lawfully undergone a request for a judgment against the Tax Tribunal with respect to the disposition of imposition of value-added tax, which is a national tax, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs had undergone the aforementioned prior trial procedure with respect to the disposition of imposition of global income tax, which is a national tax. The disposition of imposition of value-added tax and the disposition of imposition of global income tax cannot affect the disposition of imposition of global income tax, and do not constitute a case where the request for evaluation subject to the imposition of value-added tax cannot be affected by the imposition of global income tax, and it does not constitute a case where it is not necessary to go through the prior trial procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2837, May 10, 2007).

3. Whether imposition disposition, including value-added tax, is legitimate.

A. The plaintiff Lee Dong-A's assertion

1) Despite the fact that the content of the monthly settlement of accounts of EE, discovered in the US2 200 U.S. MF, was entered by adding a false representation to sell EE, the imposition disposition, such as value-added tax, based thereon, is unlawful.

2) The amount of OOO paid by wazers as a result of cash sales should also be deducted from the tax base.

B. Relevant statutes

/ Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010)

Article 13 (Tax Base)

(1) The tax base of value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the total amount of values (hereinafter referred to as "value of supply") under the following subparagraphs: Provided, That value-added taxes shall not be included:

1. Where payments are given in money: The payments;

(1) Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010)

Article 48 (Calculation of Tax Base)

(9) Where an entrepreneur supplies food and accommodation services or personal services, and enters the service charges of employees (including free-work income earners) along with the price separately from the price in a tax invoice, receipt, credit card sales slip, etc. under Article 32-2 of the Act, and it is confirmed that the service charges are paid to the employee concerned, the service charges shall not be included in the tax base: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the entrepreneur appropriates the service charges in his/her income.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 27, 2012, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A appeared in the Central Tax Office and confirmed the daily sales content of EE along with the accounting, and prepared separate daily settlement statement, and sent the daily settlement statement and the daily sales content to the FF. In addition, in the course of the investigation, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A stated that “The monthly settlement statement prepared by the FF and the sales revenue of the above daily settlement statement are almost similar.”

2) According to the daily settlement statement of EE prepared by Plaintiff EE and the monthly settlement statement prepared by Plaintiff EEF, the total amount of revenue on January 201 includes the same amount as OOO won, and the total amount of revenue during the remainder of the period is almost similar.

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that the service charges paid to the EE’swater were OOO, which is the amount equivalent to 22% to 23% of the card sales.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry (including serial numbers) in the evidence Nos. 5 to 8 of Eul, the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

In light of the above facts, the above monthly settlement statement is deemed to be reliable and the disposition of value-added tax, etc. is legitimate, in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff sent the EE’s daily sales details and the daily settlement statement to the FF in the process of the investigation by the Central Tax Office; (b) the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that the monthly settlement statement of the FF is true; and (c) the actual amount of the EE’s daily sales details and daily settlement statement prepared by the Plaintiff EE and the monthly settlement statement of the FF is almost similar to that written by the Plaintiff EE; and (d) the monthly settlement statement of the FF is almost similar to that written

2) Judgment on the second argument

The facts that the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the service charges that he paid to the EE’swater to the Defendant are as seen earlier. In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the OOO personnel should be deducted from the tax base is not reasonable, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid the OO personnel to thewater out of the cash sales.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax is illegal and thus, it is dismissed. The part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition, such as the value-added tax, is without merit, and it is dismissed as