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

A. From December 14, 2006 to August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff operated an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “the instant entertainment drinking club”) under the trade name, “O clubs from 000 O-dong 00 O-dong 00 to O-dong 31, Namyang-si.”

B. On January 12, 201, the Defendant imposed a total of 000 won of the individual consumption tax and the education tax on the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the instant entertainment tavern was amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007 to the Individual Consumption Tax Act; (b) the special consumption tax was changed to the name of the special consumption tax; and (c) the Plaintiff was imposed on the Plaintiff; (d) according to the review decision by the Tax Tribunal, the said disposition was modified; and (e) September 1, 201, the Plaintiff imposed a total of 00 won of the individual consumption tax and the education tax from December 2006 to December 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-sovered facts, Gap evidence 1 to 23, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 6-1 to 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the first stage entertainment tavern promotion plan (hereinafter referred to as the "first stage promotion plan") on February 3, 1997, the National Tax Service imposed individual consumption tax only when the workplace size is not less than 40 square meters, and in the second stage entertainment tavern promotion plan (hereinafter referred to as the "second stage promotion plan"), the Seoul metropolitan area was 35 square meters or more in other Si areas and its place of business was expanded by 40 square meters in 10 years or more, and as the above first stage promotion plan was implemented for less than 10 years, non-taxable practices, such as individual consumption tax and individual consumption tax, were widely accepted to general taxpayers, and thus, it became the basis for tax law. The Plaintiff’s disposition of entertainment tavern at least 23 square meters (7.2 square meters), which was conducted by the Plaintiff, did not constitute the Plaintiff’s tax-free disposition, and it does not constitute the Plaintiff’s tax-free disposition, and it does not constitute the Plaintiff’s tax-free disposition, and it does not constitute the Plaintiff’s tax-free disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff had an entertainment worker during the pertinent taxable period and operated the instant entertainment tavern. The actual business area of the instant entertainment tavern was consistent with 72.96 square meters (2.1 square meters) with the business license certificate, and was confirmed as a result of the Defendant’s tax investigation.

(2) The purpose of the first phase promotion plan is to ensure smooth enforcement by relaxing administrative problems following the temporary expansion of taxation, once it is imposed on a business establishment permitted for an entertainment tavern in a lump sum, regardless of the scale, because it is highly shock that a small business establishment suffers from difficulties in living in the field and by setting the scope of taxation by region and scale, and first imposes tax on a business establishment falling short of the scope of taxation, and by lowering taxation by step, once it is imposed on a business establishment falling short of the scope.

(3) According to the first-stage promotion plan, the criteria for the size of individual consumption tax imposed on the entertainment tavern business operators are set at least 35 square meters in the area of a Metropolitan City or more, and at least 40 square meters in the area of a Si or Gun, and at least 45 square meters in the area of a Gun, and even if a business operator is below the standard size, who employs entertainment workers or operates a entertainment facility and is deemed appropriate to impose individual consumption tax on the business operator.

(4) The second phase implementation plan was promoted from March 1, 1999 when it is necessary to adjust the standard scale to the business operators who were deferred in taxation in the first phase implementation plan and to strengthen taxation management for related business establishments, such as the permission of late-time camping and the cancellation of the restriction on permission of entertainment tavern business from March 1, 199.

(5) The content of the second-stage promotion plan was that the standard of the size of individual consumption tax imposed was 30 square meters or more in the area of a place of business, and 40 or more in the case of entertainment taverns in the area of Seoul Metropolitan City, and 35 or more in the case of entertainment taverns in the area of Seoul Metropolitan City, and where it is deemed appropriate for the head of a tax office to impose taxes on entertainment and entertainment

[Grounds for recognition] The entry into Gap 3, Eul 4, Eul 6, and Eul 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

(1) Claim on violation of the standard for tax interpretation such as prohibition of retroactive taxation

The principle of respect for tax practice stipulated in Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies only to cases where there are special circumstances deemed that the taxpayer’s trust is consistent with the concept of justice even if the principle of legality is sacrificeed by the Plaintiff. As shown in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the subject and tax rate of individual consumption tax are specified in the Acts and subordinate statutes and are not delegated to the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule, etc. concerning the subject of exclusion therefrom, so in principle, the proprietor of all entertainment taverns including the Plaintiff has a legal obligation to report and pay individual consumption tax, etc. The instant 12-stage promotion plan was established by the National Tax Service for the sake of normal taxation of individual consumption tax on entertainment taverns, and it is not necessary to establish and implement a plan for the promotion of tax-free entertainment taverns under the Act on the Establishment of a 2-stage entertainment tavern for the purpose of reducing the level of tax exemption prior to the imposition of individual consumption tax on entertainment taverns, and it is not necessary to establish and implement a plan for the promotion of tax-free entertainment bars more than a certain scale than 30-year.

(2) Claim on violation of the principle of tax equality

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant made a arbitrary different disposition on the subject of taxation such as the entertainment tavern in this case, and according to the decision of the National Tax Service and the Tax Tribunal attached to the defendant's reply, it can be seen that the tax authorities actively impose the individual consumption tax on the business places less than the area specified in the first and second stages promotion plan of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the disposition in this case is in violation of the principle of tax equality solely on the ground that the defendant imposed the individual consumption tax on the entertainment tavern in this case by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff'

(3) The assertion as to the illegality of additional tax part

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose individual consumption tax and the realization of tax claims, additional tax shall be imposed for non-performance of the obligation under the tax law unless there is a justifiable reason that it is difficult for a taxpayer to properly present it or for a taxpayer to expect the party to fulfill the obligation. The imposition of individual consumption tax and the rate of individual consumption tax are stipulated in the law and are not delegated by the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule of the Individual Consumption Tax Act. In principle, entertainment taverns under the Individual Consumption Tax Act provide that both are subject to taxation, and that a taxpayer should report and pay it by himself, and that it does not constitute a non-taxation practice that does not impose any condition for non-taxation on entertainment taverns located in the Seoul Metropolitan City area under the 12-stage promotion plan. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s non-taxation practice was established due to the Plaintiff’s failure to report and pay the individual consumption tax for less than 35 or 40 square meters.

3. Conclusion

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