00 00 Dong 00 000-00

Law Firm (LLC) 00

Attorney 000,000

Litigation performers 000

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of individual consumption tax and education tax on April 12, 2013 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff of KRW 287,046,440 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is running a business until December 7, 201 (the opening of the business on December 7, 2010) with the trade name of 113.9 square meters in 113.9 square meters in 147.4 square meters in underground floor of 000 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 60- 600 - (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

B. Meanwhile, on December 7, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the type of business of the instant place of business to a food entertainment business at 00:00,000,000, and reported the type of business to a general restaurant. Of the first floor of the instant building, Nonparty DD and FF operated the instant place of business (DD) in the name of “CC (hereinafter “CC”) on the 210.3 square meters of the underground floor of the instant building and its middle floor (hereinafter “CC business”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21347, Apr. 10, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 23283, Oct. 27, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23268, Oct. 28, 2011>

C. From January 10, 2013 to February 18, 2013, the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant to the effect that the instant place of business constitutes a taxable entertainment place provided in the Individual Consumption Tax Act, and that the instant place of business constitutes a taxable entertainment place as a whole, and that the individual consumption tax should be imposed on the instant place of business. Upon the above notification, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on December 12, 2010 through December 2012, 2012 of the education tax and the total amount of education tax and the individual consumption tax (including additional tax) of KRW 287,046,440 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 8, 2015, but dismissed on January 8, 2015 (the written decision of dismissal appears to have been served on the Plaintiff after January 15, 2015, and the Defendant did not dispute this point). The Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on April 10, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 17, 18, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Defendant issued the instant case on the premise that the instant place of business is in fact a single place of business, but the instant place of business was operated in a separate place separate from theCC, so even if the instant place of business falls under the place subject to imposition of the individual consumption tax, the instant place of business ought to be deemed unrelated to the instant place of business. Even if the instant place of business, as alleged by the Defendant, is part of the instant place of business, ② the instant place of business does not prepare and sell food, ③ the instant place of business is the main place for public performance and viewing, and the instant place of business is not primarily for customers to dance or singing, and ④ the average consumption amount of customers in the instant place of business is less than 30,000 won, ⑤ The instant place of business is the small amount of customers’ average consumption, and ⑤ The so-called so-called red club, such as the instant place of business, serves as a sound cultural place for promoting various music and public performance culture and creating new music and public performance culture.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

1) Article 1(1) of the former Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11601, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter "the Individual Consumption Tax Act") provides that "the individual consumption tax shall be imposed on specific goods, admission to a specific place, eating, drinking, and drinking at a specific place, and business activities at a specific place." Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that "the individual consumption tax shall be imposed on taxable entertainment places and their tax rates as follows: The individual consumption tax shall be imposed on entertainment entertainment places and their tax rates: 10/10 of entertainment bars, foreigner-only entertainment restaurants, and other similar places; 2.12 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Individual Consumption Tax Act provides that "persons engaged in entertainment and eating, etc." means entertainment facilities installed at entertainment and drinking places or 2.4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25197, Feb. 21, 2014; 2.3. The former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides for similar types of entertainment and entertainment facilities."

2) The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant establishment is one place of business and one place of business as a whole, and whether the entire place of business constitutes a taxable entertainment place that is subject to individual consumption tax under the Individual Consumption Tax Act. In full view of each of the above provisions, whether the pertinent establishment constitutes a taxable entertainment place is a business that cooks and sells alcoholic beverages, namely, whether the pertinent place of business constitutes an entertainment drinking house business that is stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Food Act, namely, whether the pertinent place of business is a business that cooks and sells entertainment facilities, and customers are permitted to sing or dance, namely, whether the pertinent place of business is a business that mainly prepares and sells alcoholic beverages, and (2) a business that mainly prepares and sells entertainment facilities, or installs entertainment facilities, and (3) a customer is allowed to sing or dance music and dance, and it is determined that the entire place of business is determined as one of the entertainment drinking facilities subject to imposition as a whole by considering the following circumstances.

① The instant place of business is installed on the underground floor of the instant building. The area of the 1st floor below the instant building is 547.4 square meters, and the area of 210.3 square meters is installed on the 1st underground floor. The 1st underground floor is installed with stage, sound equipment, special lighting, bar, dance, and kitchen facilities, and the 10th underground floor is equipped with strings (VIP).

② The Plaintiff is operating the instant place of business with the trade name “BBB” in approximately approximately 113.9 square meters of the above underground floor (hereinafter “BB”). The Plaintiff’s place of business is operating in the remaining parts of the first floor of the underground floor. The BB place of business is using a signboard with the instant place of business, using the same entrance and using the same entrance, and there are no barriers that distinguish each place of business from each place of business, and there is no difference between the payment of the admission fee and the payment of the admission fee (i.e., the two places of business are not separate customers; hereinafter “the entire place of business”).

③ The sales of the entire place of business of the instant case consisting of entrance fees, alcoholic beverages, and the sales of alcoholic beverages. Admission fees were KRW 10,000 on the ordinary day, KRW 15,00 on the weekends, and KRW 15,00 on the weekends. The sales of both alcoholic beverages are confirmed to have been conducted in KRW 120,00 from KRW 120,00 on the weekends. The additional charges for KRW 2,10,000 to KRW 3,100 on the use of VIPs are deemed to have been imposed. The sales of the entire place of business of the instant case are deemed to have been made by customers of the entire place of business, and can be confirmed to have sold

④ From April 10, 2009 to October 27, 201, DDR operated its establishment. DDR reported its operation to the effect that it is a general restaurant at 00:00,000, but GG head issued a facility repair order on October 30, 2009 on the ground that DDR violated the Food Sanitation Act, such as “the installation of an entertainment drinking hall outside the entertainment drinking house” to DDR, and submitted a written statement of imposition of DDR’s imposition of a penalty surcharge in KRW 20,40,000,000, in lieu of business suspension on the ground that DD violated the Food Sanitation Act for the same reason (this would be reduced to KRW 1,320,000,000,000,000,000).

⑤ From August 26, 2011 to January 21, 2012, the Plaintiff installed stage, lighting, and sound equipment at a store of 113.9 square meters on the 1st floor underground of the instant building without obtaining permission for an entertainment tavern business from the competent Gu office, and made it possible for the Plaintiff to drink and dance with money from many unspecified customers. Accordingly, the Defendant (Plaintiff) operated an entertainment tavern business without permission. The Defendant (Plaintiff) was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million at the Seoul Western District Court on May 10, 2012 (the instant case).

In full view of the above circumstances, the workplace of this case andCC seems to have operated a business as a whole while forming the entire workplace of this case, and the entire workplace of this case is mainly alcoholic beverages. ② The customers admitted to the entire workplace of this case used the amusement facilities such as stage, sound equipment, special lighting, and straw facilities, etc., and ③ simultaneously with consumption of alcoholic beverages, it can be evaluated that the entire workplace of this case constitutes a so-called "entertainment entertainment place" which is subject to the imposition of the Individual Consumption Tax Act, and the workplace of this case operated as a part of this case also constitutes a taxable entertainment place.

"Business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages" as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act means a business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, which should be interpreted as a business of selling alcoholic beverages at the same time through historical and systematic methodology. The entire place of business of this case is merely providing alcoholic beverages without cooking, and there is no cooking of food (see evidence No. 5 of this case). Thus, the entire place of business of this case does not constitute a taxable entertainment place. However, although the place of business of this case is "business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages" as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, i.e., business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, which allows customers to singing or dance, and it does not constitute a business of selling alcoholic beverages as alcoholic beverages and cooking alcoholic beverages, and the entire place of business of this case constitutes a business of selling alcoholic beverages, and it does not constitute a business of selling alcoholic beverages or dancing, and the plaintiff's assertion that the entire place of business of this case constitutes a business of selling entertainment entertainment bars or dancing, and it does not constitute an entertainment entertainment hall of this case 20.

However, even after examining the images of Gap evidence 6, the public performance time is from 5 p.m. to 5 p.m., in some cases, minors are allowed to enter the public performance, and the organizer stated that he is a separate public performance planning company that is not the entire business site of this case, and that he is allowed to sell it through the separate company's Internet website, or that he leaves after the completion of the public performance. Thus, the entire business site of this case is not used as a performance hall mainly, but as a "gys that freely dance with customers while drinking alcohol," and it seems that the entire business site of this case was used as a "gys that freely dance with customers while drinking alcohol on a certain date."

Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence Nos. 21 through 24 and Gap evidence Nos. 20, the entire place of business of this case shows that there exists a contribution team employed by the entire place of business of this case. They appear to be working at the entire place of business of this case. They appear to have offered some performances by inviting performers during the entire operation hours of the entire place of business of this case. However, the materials presented to the effect that the plaintiff employed the entire place of business of this case are not the taxable period of the disposition of this case but the materials of 2015, and it seems irrelevant to the legality of the disposition of this case. ② The plaintiff asserted that the entire place of business of this case had concluded an employment contract with the entire place of business of this case, as examined later, the entire place of business of this case was operated as DJ or rap to promote customers' interest in the entire place of business of this case. ③ Even if the plaintiff's act itself is asserted, the entire area of the entire place of business of this case can not be seen as being 3% of the entire place of public performance area of this case.

5) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the entire place of business of this case constitutes not an entertainment drinking house but a " sound cultural space" and "tourist destination", and thus does not fall under the imposition of individual consumption tax.

However, as seen earlier, if a place of business is actually similar to an entertainment drinking house under the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, that is, a place of business that carries on business similar to an entertainment drinking house, that is, a place of business subject to individual consumption tax, and whether it constitutes a sound cultural space or a tourist destination, is irrelevant to the imposition of individual consumption tax, and ② In addition to the facts of recognition and the grounds for recognition as being known, the entire purport of the pleadings is the so-called "red red club" located near the Hongk University. The entire place of business of this case is a so-called "red red club" where both men and women enjoy drinking while drinking and dancing in the form of "non-fuse club" where they enjoy drinking while drinking and dance to the whole place of business, and even considering the purpose of legislation of the Individual Consumption Tax Act, it cannot be interpreted that such type of business is not subject to individual consumption tax on the ground that it is " sound cultural space" or "tourist destination."

6) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the most important purpose of the Individual Consumption Tax Act is to restrain the consumption of scarcity, and that the entrance fee paid by customers visiting the entire workplace of this case is KRW 10,000 or KRW 15,000, and the price of alcoholic beverages and beverages sold within the instant workplace is mainly within and outside of KRW 5,00,00, and the price of spawn is mainly within and outside of KRW 20,00,00, the average sales per transaction of which are approximately KRW 25,00,00, cannot be deemed as a place where scarcity consumption is conducted, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a taxable entertainment place (Evidence A 19).

① However, in light of the fact that the instant business establishment sells drinking beverages in addition to drinking water, and in view of the fact that VIP seat collects a separate charge of KRW 210,00 through KRW 310,00,000, even if the average sales volume is within KRW 25,000, it cannot be deemed that the individual sales volume did not occur. ② As seen earlier, if a taxable entertainment place is in fact similar to an entertainment drinking house under the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, i.e., a taxable entertainment place, it is subject to the individual consumption tax, and ③ it is difficult to regard it as private goods such as guns for hunting, small automobiles, oil, etc. as well as the individual consumption tax, and thus, it cannot be interpreted that it is not subject to the individual consumption tax solely on the ground that the average sales volume of the individual sales volume is a small amount, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted (the Plaintiff’s so-called “non-taxation club” should also be treated differently from the existing entertainment type and culture.

3. Conclusion

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