2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. From February 23, 2011 to July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff is a person who operates an Internet shopping mall (hereinafter referred to as “the shopping mall in this case”) that sells women’s clothes, etc. in the trade name, such as ○○○○ road x A x a x a x a x a xb.

B. The Plaintiff, while operating the shopping mall of this case during the foregoing period (from January to February 2012), paid the value-added tax as indicated below.

C. From November 25, 2014 to December 22, 2014, the head of the △△ District Tax Office conducted a personal integration investigation with respect to Song and notified the Defendant of the purchase amount of KRW 327,40,00 ( KRW 80,050,000 for January 201, 201, KRW 131,70,000 for February 1, 201, KRW 108,150,000 for January 1, 201, and KRW 7,50,000 for February 2012, 201, and KRW 7,500,000 for February 7, 2012, 50,000 for KRW 00 for purchase amount; hereinafter referred to as “purchase amount”).

D. The Defendant applied Article 21(1)2 and Article 21(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) to the purchase amount in the instant case; Article 69(1)4(d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) to the total profit ratio (32.42, 34.57%, 2012), and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

Correction table of the value-added tax.

Taxation Period

Type of Taxation

Non-data Purchasing Amount

Gross profit ratio

Amount converted from sales

(Purchase Amount ¡¿ 1/ (1-Total Profit Rate)

Value-added Tax

(including additional tax)

2011.1

Simplified Taxation

80,050,000

32.42%

18,452,205

2,736,950

2011.2

131,700,000

194,680,142

4,341,530

2012.1

General Taxation

98,318,182

(108,150,000/1.1)

34.57%

150,264,683

21,496,860

2012.2

6,818,182

(7,500,000/1.1)

10,420,574

1,433,240

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 10, 2015 on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) the existence of procedural defects

The defendant did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to give prior notice or to present his opinion in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act while rendering the disposition in this case, and did not present the grounds and reasons for the disposition in this case. The disposition in this case is unlawful as procedural defects exist.

2) Illegality of decision of estimated investigation

Although the Plaintiff reported all the purchase amount of the instant case to be included in the sales cost upon filing a global income tax return, the Defendant, without conducting any substantive investigation as to whether the total purchase amount of the instant case constitutes the amount of non-data purchase, made a decision of estimated investigation, and made the instant disposition imposing the value-added tax on the Plaintiff. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From 2011 to 2011, Song has received orders from local retail stores or Internet shopping mall companies that intend to purchase clothing in the market for daily sales prices, lakes, items, etc. in accordance with the above orders, and operated the business by delivering goods to the above Internet shopping mall companies, etc. and receiving service fees in the form of service charges. The Plaintiff purchased and sold clothing, etc. in the market 】 (i.e., the above methods 】 the Plaintiff purchased and sold clothing, etc. in the market.

2) The details of the Plaintiff’s global income tax returns while operating the shopping mall of this case from 2011 to 2012 are as listed below.

Taxation Period

Sales of Goods

Amount of goods purchased (sales cost)

Other expenses

Amount of income;

2011

721,470,632

40,744,070

211,99,642

68,726,920

2012

268,759,436

151,021,057

96,906,444

20,831,935

3) The Plaintiff purchased clothing from a large number of clothing and retail enterprises (hereinafter referred to as “sponsing enterprises”) such as NA○○○ (Representative KimB), Ba○○ (Representative YangCC), doping○○○ (Representative HoD), and Mo○○○ (Representative EE). The details of the Plaintiff’s purchase of goods from the clothing enterprises in 2011 and the payment of the clothing price to the representative of the clothing company instead of going through an agent, such as AAA, are as follows.

No.

Trade Name

Name of Representative

Amount (won)

1

EMMA

Permission 】 (Permission)

1,315,000

2

MMM

3

LB

Maximum ¡¿ 】

71,000

4

ZARA

Quantity ¡¿ quantity ¡¿

35,195,000

5

Bara

6

Bosviz

This 】

90,000

7

봐봐봐

This 】

2,078,000

8

Vigos Doz.

Kim 】

187,000

9

Domindide Domind

Maximum ¡¿ 】

45,000

10

AeneNEN

Kim 】

37,026,000

11

Rouses

Letters 】 (Clerks)

90,000

12

Trine Notes

Kim 】

43,000

13

KWK

Kim 】

135,000

14

Tank Tanks

Park 】 】

280,000

15

Trampocks

The schedule ¡¿ (the schedule)

1,968,000

16

Hain Hain

Kim 】

416,000

Total

79,839,000

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the fact-finding inquiry and reply to the head of △△ District Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Articles 21(1) and 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provide that the administrative agency shall exclude arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency, determine the illegality of the relevant disposition, and enable interested parties such as the disposition party to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. In light of such purport, if the administrative agency provides reasonable grounds and grounds to the extent that the relevant disposition is able to identify the grounds and grounds for the relevant disposition, or if the relevant disposition party is able to identify the grounds and grounds for the relevant disposition in light of all the circumstances, such disposition shall not be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8912, May 17, 2002). Article 3 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides for the scope of application of the Act, and Article 21(2)9 of the Administrative Procedures Act excludes "matters deemed difficult or unnecessary due to the nature of the relevant administrative action, and matters prescribed by Presidential Decree as those similar to the administrative procedure," and Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act excludes the application of the Act.

B) In light of the above legal principles and regulations, the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole in light of the purport of the entire arguments admitted as a whole, and ① the Defendant appears to have given notice of prior notice of taxation to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015, prior to the disposition of the instant case, and it also stated that the notice of notice of notice of tax conversion by means of data omitted from purchase (purchase) was “Notice of decision of tax conversion by data omitted from purchase.” In light of such overall circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff as the disposition party could have known the grounds for the disposition of the instant case. ② The instant disposition is a disposition under the former Value-Added Tax Act, which is a tax-related act, and thus is a disposition under the former Value-Added Tax Act, and thus does not apply to the prior notice of the Administrative Procedure Act or the submission of opinions, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition

2) Determination on the second argument

(A) Under Article 21(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of payable tax should be corrected: Provided, That in cases where there is no tax invoice, account book, or other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base or where the material part is not provided (Article 21(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act), the "total profit ratio may be applied to a sale and purchase profit ratio which sets the ratio of sales and gross profit to sales during a given period" under Article 69(1)4(d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. Furthermore, in order to calculate the tax base (Article 21(1)5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, if there is no amount or document presented by the taxpayer, which serves as the basis of income or tax base, or it is exceptionally acknowledged that the tax office cannot use it in the way of base taxation because it is insufficient or false, the tax office can only determine the amount of estimated tax base and the amount of payable tax can be found to be inappropriate after an on the basis of estimate 9796.

C) In light of the aforementioned provisions and relevant legal principles, the Defendant should have on-site investigation as to “the first and second parts of the year 201,” taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments and arguments admitted as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that there was sales of other goods in addition to the sales of the goods reported by the Plaintiff, and whether the sales of other goods was included in the sales of the global income tax reported by the Plaintiff, and whether the portion already was included in the tax base (sales of goods) was not reported. It is unlawful to rectify the value-added tax by converting the total amount of KRW 211,750,000 from the sales of the said goods paid by the Plaintiff to Song by means of an estimate investigation without such substantive investigation.

① As to the purchase amount of this case, the Defendant did not conduct any investigation into the purchase details table or bank account (Korean bank, new bank, and national bank), etc., which appears to have been used by the Plaintiff while operating the shopping mall of this case, and did not proceed with the investigation process, such as pointed out the illegality of evidence, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff and receiving new material.

② According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 2, it appears that, at the same time as at the time when the Plaintiff purchased clothing, etc. from the clothing company using the purchase amount received from the Plaintiff during the period of 1, 2011 and 2, several purchase slips exist. In light of this, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to conclude that the purchase amount of KRW 211,750,000 paid by the Plaintiff to Song constitutes non-data purchase, or that the total purchase amount of KRW 211,750,00 paid by the Plaintiff to Song during the period of 1,201, and 200 is omitted from the sales amount of the above global income tax, it is difficult to conclude that there is no other evidence, and instead, it is reasonable to deem that some of the above 211,750,000 that the Plaintiff paid to Song is included in the sales amount of global income tax reported by the Plaintiff.

③ The sum of the total sales actually deposited with the above bank accounts used by the Plaintiff appears to be the same as the amount returned by the Plaintiff as the sales amount of goods (721,470,632 won) while filing a return of value-added tax and comprehensive income tax. In the absence of any evidence to prove that there was an additional sales amount, such as underreporting or concealing the sales amount of each product when filing a return of global income tax or value-added tax for the first and second years 201, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax, without conducting a substantive investigation, was reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount close to the truth by applying the total sales profit ratio to the purchase amount of this case as the Plaintiff’s additional sales amount.

④ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid an amount equivalent to KRW 474,520,00 with the purchase price of goods other than KRW 211,750,00 paid to Song for the first and second years of 201, the Defendant reported that the purchase price of goods spent during the above period was KRW 440,74,070,00, even though it had paid an amount equivalent to KRW 211,750 with the purchase price of goods, the Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 210,750,00, which is the amount paid to Song as the purchase price of goods, is not included in the purchase price of goods reported by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a comprehensive income tax return, but rather included in KRW 79,839,00 with the business entity for the second and second period of 20,000 with the purchase price of goods and at least KRW 606,431,00,000 with the Plaintiff’s purchase price of goods, as seen earlier, it is difficult to be included in the Defendant’s assertion.

⑤ The amount equivalent to the sales amount corresponding to the sales amount included in the global income tax at the time of filing the global income tax return shall be deemed included in the sales amount of the product indicated when filing the global income tax or value-added tax. Furthermore, as long as there is high room to view that some of the above 211,750,000 won paid by the Plaintiff to Song as above is included in the sales amount, there is room to view that the corresponding sales amount of the product corresponding to that portion is also included in the

D) Next, the following circumstances are considered as follows: (a) the first and second parts of 2012 were examined; (b) the first and second parts of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff; (c) the overall purport of each evidence presented by the Plaintiff was comprehensively taken into account; (c) the Defendant confirmed whether the tax invoice (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a value-added tax return for the first and second parts of 2012; (d) the number of goods purchased by the Plaintiff from the clothing company using the goods purchase price received by the Plaintiff, which were received by the Plaintiff, coincide with the details of the goods purchase price received by the Plaintiff; or (c) it appears that the process of the on-site investigation is not conducted upon being presented new materials, as evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient or false; (d) there are a considerable number of items written at the same time as that of the goods purchase price received by the Plaintiff; and (e) the said tax invoice should have been included in the total amount of the goods purchase price paid by the Plaintiff for at least 10 years after being issued by the Plaintiff without any additional tax invoice 2.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the Defendant’s disposition imposing value-added tax on the total purchase amount of this case by means of an additional investigation without undergoing the substantive investigation procedure is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.