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

Cheong-gu Office

All the disposition of imposition of attached Forms 1 through 3 against the plaintiff by the defendant shall be revoked.

"A. The plaintiff is a business operator who operates each entertainment establishment under the trade name of ESE clubs 538-7 DD 701, and 801 from April 1, 2008, 2008 (hereinafter the above two entertainment businesses collectively referred to as "each of the above two entertainment businesses". (b) The director of the Central Tax Office of China conducted a personal tax integration investigation with the plaintiff from October 26, 201 to January 3, 201, and processed the results of the investigation by the plaintiff from April 1, 2008 to December 31, 201, and notified the defendant of the omission of the results of the investigation from each of the above businesses to ESE 601.

C. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a return on the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW OO of the instant place of business omitted, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation into the details of imposition of KRW 25% of the cash sales of each of the instant place of business and the details of imposition of KRW 1 through 3, 2012 on April 12, 2012; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW OOO, individual consumption tax, and education tax (from April 2008 to October 2010) (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of value-added tax, etc.”); (c) notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 25% of the total amount of KRW 208 and KRW 15 of the amount of individual consumption tax claimed by the National Tax Service on May 1, 2012; and (d) notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 100 and KRW 215 of the amount of individual consumption tax claimed by the Plaintiff.

E. According to the above decision, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation on November 1, 2012 with respect to the Plaintiff, and conducted a reinvestigation on the necessary expenses of the personnel expenses of the full-time employees who claim that the Plaintiff actually paid, and adjusted the Plaintiff’s shares in each of the instant workplaces from 35% to 40%, and subsequently issued a correction disposition to increase the amount of the OO in the initial global income tax assessment (the imposition disposition of the global income tax in this case is referred to as “the imposition disposition of the global income tax in this case,” and the imposition disposition of the global income tax in this case and the value-added tax in this case are referred to as “each of the instant dispositions in this case”), “the grounds for recognition” (the imposition disposition of the global income tax in this case and each of the instant disposition, including the instant value-added tax, are referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”). The purport of the entire arguments and arguments

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“1) The Corporation’s employees working at each of the instant workplaces are independent entrepreneurs who directly attract and manage customers and receive service charges from customers for their own business, not the employees employed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff indicated that the service charges are included in the price list on the entrance, walls, and Me New Markets, etc. of each of the instant workplaces, and actually paid the service charges after being entered separately from the customers on the credit car sales slips, etc., and the payment was made by the customers to the Corporation. Since the income tax was withheld on the service charges paid by the customers to the Corporation, the amount of service charges paid by the Plaintiff to the Corporation shall be excluded from the sales amount of each of the instant workplaces (hereinafter the Plaintiff’s assertion is referred to as the “service charges”). 2) As long as the nature of the amount paid to the Corporation from each of the instant workplaces, the amount of service charges paid by the Plaintiff should be excluded from the sales amount of the global income tax base at least 25% of the sales amount of the Plaintiff’s global income tax base after deducting the amount paid by the Defendant from the global income tax base.

3) Even if the nature of the amount the Plaintiff paid to waitter is not a service fee, the entire amount received from the customer as a service fee should be deducted from the necessary expenses when calculating the global income tax base.

4) In calculating the global income tax base against the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that only the OOO members were actually paid to five full-time employees working in each of the instant workplaces, and deducted them as necessary expenses. However, the Plaintiff paid the OO members to five full-time employees. As such, the entire amount should be deducted as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 4 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff operated each of the instant establishments in the form of attracting customers to each of the instant entertainment establishments and providing them with various convenience, while running the instant establishments.

2) The Plaintiff received deposits equivalent to approximately KRW OOO per head in preparation for cases where the Plaintiff is unable to recover the credit sales when employing await in each of the instant places of business, and the amount was deducted from the relevant security deposit in cases where the Plaintiff did not receive the liquor price from the respective customers in charge of the Plaintiff or did not pay the price to the Plaintiff.

3)waters in each of the instant workplaces provided services, such as ice, ice, baling, loan procurement, acting driving, etc. in exclusive charge of customers who found themselves, and, without finding any specific water, wazers allocated by the sequences to customers in each of the instant workplaces without finding any specific water.

4) The Plaintiff issued credit card sales slips and cash receipts separately between the main and service fees to the customer who was paid with credit cards or received cash receipts. The ratio of the sealed feed compared to the sales revenue of the above sales slips and receipts (the total principal and salary feed) is not set at 33% to 40% in the case of EEA clubs, and 45% in the case of FFF visa, to 60%.

"5) The customers using each of the instant workplaces pay the prime and service charges in lump sum with credit cards, cash, etc., and pay the principal and the service charges to the wazers who provided the above services to them, 6) The wazers of each of the instant workplaces have worked on the working day and the leave of absence without receiving the fixed benefits from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff transferred the service charges of this case to the account in the name of one bank in the name of each of the individuals of the waz (payment in cash from March 28, 2008 to June 30, 208) and submitted the wazz's confirmation signature to receive the relevant service charges in the service charge payment ledger (No. 9-2, 3, 10-2 through 4, 16-2, 17-3, 8-7, 8-7, 8-8).

"7) However, at the time of the tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff, the amount of service charges was not written without entering the amount of the service charges at each business site of this case, and only the signature was kept (No. 9-2 through 4). Tax cooperation documents sent by the person in charge of tax accounting corporation to EE clubs General shall be made only in unit, and the service charges and business income shall be made every unit, and the OOO (FF), total OOOO (EE) reported at every 8 months, and the OOOO (EE) deposit shall be made at each business site of this case (No. 9-1), and 8) also, one bank account in the name of the plaintiff who deposited the service charges of this case was made by the plaintiff at intervals of 27 days from each business site of this case (the plaintiff asserted that the amount of the service charges of this case was made under the delegation of his relations with low water, but all of which were deposited within 37 days from each business site of this case.

9) In the event that the aforementioned withdrawals are made in the form of a check as a result of the investigation by the Central Tax Office, the presenter of the check is not identified as the user of the check, as the Plaintiff himself/herself and his/her spouse, YG (the representative of HH in the previous business chain Co., Ltd. operating each of the instant workplaces), the manager of each of the instant workplaces, the chief, the managing director, the former, and the stockholders of the JJ in each of the instant workplaces as the lessee of the instant workplaces, and the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the account in which the check is withdrawn, as the check’s account (except where the check is not indicated or its connection is not verified, or where the bank did not reply to the request for the provision

10) According to the detailed statement prepared by an employee of the Central Tax Office at the time of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff (Evidence Nos. 18, 33) after having made a telephone conversation with the wazers (Evidence No. 18, 33), a considerable number of wazers working in each of the instant workplaces was settled at the accounting office at 25% of the cash sales and 15% of the card sales (including the case where 15% of the cash sales and 10% of the card sales were paid). Although there was an identification card to make the passbook at each of the instant workplaces, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that there was no smaller use of the passbook, the Plaintiff did not reply to the purport that approximately 35% of the cash sales were paid through the Plaintiff’s account.

11) The Plaintiff withheld the income tax and paid it to the competent tax office by taking the amount equivalent to the service charges of this case as the business income of the wazers belonging to each of the instant business establishments.

[인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제6호증, 제9호증의 2, 3, 제10호증의 2 내지 4, 제16 내지 85, 87, 88호증, 을 제9 내지 12, 16 내지 19, 25 내지 33, 35 내지 37, 47호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 증인 이KK, 안LL, 이MM, 조NN, 박PP, 윤QQ의 각 일부 증언, 변론 전체의 취지

D. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the instant service charges to thewaitian

먼저 원고가 이 사건 봉사료를 웨이터들에게 전액 지급하였는지에 관하여 살피건대, 위 인정 사실 및 이 사건 기록과 변론에 나타난 다음과 같은 사정에 비추어 보면, 이에 관한 원고 주장 사실에 부합하는 듯한 증인 이KK, 안LL, 이MM, 조NN, 박PP, 윤QQ의 각 일부 증언은 선뜻 믿기 어렵고, 봉사료지급대장(갑 제9호증의 2,3, 제 10호증의 2, 3, 4, 제 16호증의 2, 제 17호증의 3), 통장거래 내역 (갑 제 87, 88호증)은 이 사건 봉사료 지급 사실의 인정 근거로 삼기 어렵다.

(1) A witness K (EEEA club from April 2008 to March 2010) has testified to the same effect, but they are given testimony after first entering in the service fee payment ledger at the time they are working, they later after confirming it and signing it. A witness YL (from September 2008 to August 2009 to the same club as Gazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzine). However, these testimony is no more than 5% of the actual status of the service fee ledger and their telephone from the above service fee ledger as seen earlier, and it cannot be ascertained as 15% of the amount of cash bill and no more than 25% of the amount of the passbookzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

② The witness EEEAM (from June 201 to the date of signing the EEA club) testified that there exists a service charge ledger stating only the signature without stating the amount considered to be annoyingly engaged in the service charge, but the amount recorded in the service charge ledger is the amount before income tax and resident tax are withheld, and the fact that the above amount of the service charge is the amount after withholding the income tax and the above amount of the service charge is the amount after withholding the income tax, and it seems that the NEA club confirmed the service charge amount after withholding the withholding tax and entered it in the direct service charge ledger in the direct service charge ledger after confirming the service charge amount before withholding the withholding.

③ 증인 안LL, 조NN, 박PP은 봉사료가 입금되는 하나은행 통장을 자신들이 스스로 관리하면서 직접 금원을 출금하여 사용하였다고 증언하고, 증인 조NN, 박PP은 봉사료로 35%를 일관되게 지급받았다고 증언하였으나, 앞서 본 웨이터들 명의 계좌의 출금 형태(동일한 현금지급기에서 웨이터별로 1분에서 3분 간격으로 연속적으로 인출되고 있어 웨이터들 각자가 개별적으로 인출한 것으로는 보이지 않는다)와 부합하지 않고, 통장을 만들어 주거나 사용한 적이 없다는 취지의 위 전화진술 내용 및 아래와 같은 증인 윤QQ의 증언과도 일치하지 않으며, 앞서 본 바와 같이 EEE나이트클럽의 매출액 대비 봉사료 비율은 35%로 고정되어 있지 않고 33%에서 40%까지로 일정하지 않았다.

" ④ 증인 윤QQ(2009. 2.경부터 현재까지 EEE나이트클럽에서 웨이터로 근무)는 2009. 2.경부터 약 1년간 EEE나이트클럽에서 웨이터 총무직을 맡아 웨이터들 계좌에서 현금을 인출하고 웨이터 개인이 업소나 매점에 부담하는 외상값 등의 채무를 변제한 후 남는 돈을 웨이터들에게 나누어 주는 일을 하여주었다고 증언하였으나, 원고는 현금 인출 담당 총무의 존재 에 관하여 주장하지 않다가(오히 려 증인 안LL , 조NN, 박PP은 모두 스스로 금원을 인출하여 사용하였다고 증언한 바 있다) 피고가 웨이터별로 통합된 출금내역을 증거로 제출하자 그제서야 위와 같은 총무의 존재 사실을 주장하였고, 웨이터들이 아무런 담보도 없이 윤QQ 개인에게 현금카드를 맡기고 윤QQ 역시 특별한 대가 없이(특정 웨이터를 지명하지 않은 고객을 배정받는 혜택를 받았다고 하나, 원고는 이 사건 각 사업장이 이른바지명식 나이트'여서 특정 웨이터를 지명하지 않은 손님은 별로 없다는 취지로 주장한 바 있다) 웨이터들의 채무까지 책임지는 역할을 맡았다는 것도 선뜻 이해되지 않는다.", " ⑤ 원고가 제출한 봉사료지급대장에는 서명을 삭제한 후B'(비번을 의미)로 변경 기재한 듯한 부분과 서명의 필적이 다른 부분이 존재하고(갑 제10호증의 2), 웨이터들 명의 하나은행 계좌의 거래내역에서는 개인적 목적으로 금원이 출금된 내역(공과금 납부, 카드대금 결제 등)이 전혀 발견되지 않는다.", 나아가 원고가 제출한 나머지 증거, 특히 갑 제8호증, 제9호증의 1, 제10호증의 1, 제11 내지 15호증, 제89, 90호증의 각 기재를 모두 모아 보더라도 원고가 이 사건 봉사료 전액을 웨이터들에게 실제로 지급하였다는 점을 인정하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion that is written on a different premise.

"2) Where the instant service charges constitute value-added tax, individual consumption tax, and individual consumption tax, Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 2(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), where monetary consideration is paid for the supply of goods or services, the total amount of the consideration shall be the tax base of value-added tax [Article 13(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply], and Article 2(1)11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2031, Feb. 18, 2010).

“Service charges of employees” refer to the amount of money that the customer would directly revert to the employees who provided the relevant services for intangible services, such as their speech, care, etc., which are accompanied by the business operator’s supply of services. Thus, if it is confirmed that the service charges are paid to the employees separately from the prices for the provision of food and accommodation services or personal services, the service charges are not included in the tax base of value-added tax and individual consumption tax, but are not included in the calculation of the value-added tax and the special consumption tax as a matter of course solely on the ground that the service charges are written separately in credit card sales slip, etc., in light of these legal principles, the Plaintiff’s actual payment of service charges to each of the above service charges to employees as stipulated in Article 48(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 2(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act is not included in the calculation of the service charges for each of the above service charges to employees.

3) Whether the personnel expenses of full-time employees should be deducted as necessary expenses (the determination on the instant disposition imposing global income tax)

The Plaintiff asserts that the personnel expenses for five full-time employees employed in each of the instant workplaces should be deducted from the necessary expenses. However, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant spent the OO members in excess of the personnel expenses for the said employees, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff spent the OO members as personnel expenses. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.