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

The following facts are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 2, 3-2, 3-1, 2, 4, 5.

A. On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff opened a sales store in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○ department store”) on 7th floor of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ department store”). Around July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff reported that there was no sales store in the Defendant when filing a value-added tax return for 2 years in 2002.

B. Around January 13, 2004, the Defendant notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of taxation data that the Plaintiff made a sales equivalent to KRW 408,455,454 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter “amount omitted from sales”) during the pertinent taxable period at ○○○○○○ Point, and conducted a tax investigation. On July 16, 2004, the Defendant imposed value-added tax amount of KRW 55,61,200 (including additional tax) on the amount omitted sales at issue on the Plaintiff.

C. Around November 2004, the Defendant: (a) excluded processing sales amount of KRW 134,608,181 (excluding value-added tax) from the tax base; (b) subsequently corrected the tax amount to KRW 42,150,390; and (c) subsequently corrected the tax amount to KRW 37,284,310 on October 28, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) 원고는 ○○점을 개업하기 이전부터 ○○시 XX구 XX동 XX번지에서 'XXXX피아노'라는 상호로 사업자등록을 하고 피아노 판매점(이하 'XX점'이라 한다)을 운영하고 있었는데, ○○점 개업 후 2002. 7. 22. XX점의 사업장 소재지를 ○○점으로 이전하면서 XX점의 영업을 중단하였다가 ○○점의 사업자등록이 나온 이후인 2002. 9. 2. 다시 XX점의 영업을 재개하였다.

(2) After moving the place of business of XX to ○○, the Plaintiff filed a tax return by calculating the sales amount of ○○ store as the sales amount of XX store. On September 2, 2002, even after closing the business of XX store, the Plaintiff filed a tax return by calculating the sales amount of the rent and monthly sales amount as the sales amount at XX point.

(3) As such, 217,182,267 won (excluding value-added tax) is the amount of sales of ○○ store during the taxable period of 2002 value-added tax (excluding value-added tax). Thus, the omitted sales of ○○ store is 148,074,506 won (the sum of value-added tax plus value-added tax) from 449,301,000 won (the amount added to the omitted sales of 449,301), excluding 148,60,608,1810,494 (the sum of value-added tax added to 134,608,182,267 won) which the Plaintiff reported as sales of x store as above, and thus, the disposition of this case that exceeds the above omitted sales amount constitutes double taxation and thus constitutes a tax return, and thus, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in light of each of the above evidence, evidence No. 2, A7-2, A8, A15, A17, A17, B-6, B-7, A-8-1, and B-2 of evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the examination of the plaintiff himself/herself (excluding the part not trusted in the following) and the result of the examination of the court of first instance (excluding the part not trusted in the following).

(1) On May 22, 1985, the Plaintiff started the business of opening ○○○ on July 1, 2002, when the Plaintiff was running the business of ○○○ store and selling musical instruments, and reported the location of the ○○ store to ○○○○○ on July 22, 2002, after reporting the relocation of the place of business of ○○○○ store to ○○○○○, but again reported the relocation of the place of business of ○○○○ store to XX dong on September 2, 2002.

(2) The Plaintiff leased KRW 29,866,725, monthly basic rent of KRW 4,644,00, and monthly rent of KRW 72,972,00 from ○○ department store, and agreed to pay 7% of monthly rent in the name of commission if the monthly rent of KRW 72,972,00. Accordingly, ○○ department confirmed the sales amount on each date through the POS system, which is the sales point management system managed by ○ department store, and settled the accounts by confirming the sales amount of KRW 7% of the monthly sales amount (if the monthly sales amount is below KRW 72,972,00, the basic rent of KRW 4,64,00) and management expenses, etc., were deducted from the monthly sales amount of KRW 72,972,00.

(3) Before opening the business of ○○○ stores, the Plaintiff, along with the opening of △△△○ stores, operated the △△△△△△△ store in the same Dong, with the trade name of △△△△△△△△△ store. The head of ○○○ Tax Office, in the process of checking the validity of the Plaintiff’s quarterly report on revised value-added tax return and request for correction on the second quarter of 2002 at the store and the △△ department store, found the issues omitting the sales of ○○ store and notified the Defendant thereof.

(4) The Plaintiff also issued processed sales statements to △△ department stores in the name of XX stores. The Plaintiff filed a tax invoice issued by △△ department stores on the basis of the input tax amount at the time of filing a preliminary return of value-added tax on △ department stores, and subsequently filed a revised return. The Plaintiff filed a return on the sales of XX points during the relevant taxable period as KRW 217,182,267 (excluding value-added tax) when filing a tax return on the second quarter of 200 of XX points.

(5) In the process of filing an objection against the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a tax return on the sales volume of the relevant sales volume including the sales volume of XX points, and in fact, the Plaintiff filed a tax return on KRW 217,182,267 among them as sales volume of XX points. As such, the Plaintiff again filed a tax return on this portion based on the sales volume of ○○○○ store (Evidence 15), asserting that the imposition of value-added tax again constitutes double taxation (Evidence 15), and the sales volume of XX points and ○○ store (Evidence 17). However, this does not include the sales volume of ○○ store and ○○ store separately.

(6) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not have a separate warehouse for each workplace, and stored skin, etc. in a warehouse of XX store. In the event that nanotechnology, etc. is sold at the ○○ stores and △ department stores, the Plaintiff operated a business by directly delivering the skin, etc. stored in the warehouse of XX store to the buyer.

D. Determination

(1) As the Plaintiff’s assertion, with respect to the report of value-added tax for a period of 2 years 2002 at XX points, whether the actual sales amount of KRW 217,182,267 (excluding value-added tax) reported to be the sales amount of XX points during the pertinent taxable period constitutes part of the omitted sales amount as the sales amount of the ○○○○ point, the Plaintiff’s assertion that part of the evidence No. 18, corresponding thereto, and the Plaintiff’s testimony and the result of the Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s questioning, is insufficient to acknowledge it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Even if the above 217,182,267 won (excluding value-added tax) reported as sales at XX point amounts to part of sales at the place of business, value-added tax should be paid at each place of business (Article 4(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act), and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the remainder, other than the processing sales of 148,074,506 won (including value-added tax) out of the amount omitted sales, was actually generated at ○○. However, the Plaintiff filed a tax return with the head of the competent tax office of XX as the sales at ○○○○○. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the above 217,182,267 won was processed sales and sought a correction of the value-added tax, apart from the Plaintiff’s filing of a request for a correction of the amount of value-added tax by asserting that the processing sales at issue was the processing sales at ○○○ point.

(3) The plaintiff's assertion does not appear to have any mother or it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.