2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

17,288,87 won, KRW 30,068,09 won, KRW 11,835,223 won, KRW 11,479,572 in 2012, and KRW 157,118,830 in corporate tax (including additional tax) in May 12, 2014, and KRW 68,350,150 in corporate tax (including additional tax) in 2012, KRW 2011, KRW 5262, KRW 2012, KRW 2015, and KRW 368,350 in income tax (including additional tax) in May 10, 201, and KRW 201, KRW 524,311, KRW 2012, KRW 2625, KRW 2015, the purport of the above disposition is revoked through the CCC, and each of the reasons for revocation of the disposition is revoked.

A. From March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was practically operated by CCC as a company that had been engaged in petroleum sales business in XXa Gu from around March 1, 2010, and closed down business on September 30, 2014.

B. The commissioner of the Regional Tax Office may conduct a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from January 21, 2014 to March 26, 2014

to the first period of 2010 to the first period of 2013, the sum of the following

801,552,793 won of cash sales are omitted, and from the first period to the first period of 2010 to the 1st period of 2013, unregistered oil sellers using a small tank-based tank-based vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the " home-based article") sold 6.425 billion won in total (the sales calculated on the basis of the credit card terminal device owned by the Plaintiff by the home-based article; hereinafter referred to as the "amount omitted in sales of the credit card in this case") and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the said cash sales omission and the issuance of tax invoices were omitted; and (b) on May 2014,

7. Additional tax for the first 2010 won, and second 2010 additional tax for the second 2010.

6,407,920 won, value-added tax 17,288,87 won, value-added tax 45,87,383 won, value-added tax 45,068,099 won, value-added tax 68,297,68,681 won, value-added tax 11,835,223 won, value-added tax 38,120,507 won, value-added tax 11,479,572 won, value-added tax 16,52,988 won, value-added tax 13,06,760 won, value-added tax 13,086,760 won, and value-added tax 2012, including additional tax (including additional tax) for corporate tax for May 12, 2014; and

D. In addition, on May 10, 2014, the Defendant omitted cash sales in 2011 and 2012 to the Plaintiff (supply unit)

A) Each amount of KRW 524,311,750 and KRW 262,351,032, each of which was 524,311,750, and KRW 262,351,032, as bonus for the CCC, the actual representative of the Plaintiff, were disposed of as a bonus and notified of the change in the amount of income. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 164,732,250 each of the wage and salary income tax (A) in September 25, 2014 and KRW 164,732,25

E. The Plaintiff’s imposition of each of the above value-added taxes (including additional taxes), corporate tax (including additional taxes), and income tax

On July 28, 2014, an objection was filed on July 28, 2014, and requested to the Tax Tribunal on November 19, 2014, but was dismissed on April 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Regarding omission of cash sales

Cash recorded by the Plaintiff in the POS system

The revenue amount has been reported by omitting some of the amounts of sales, and the omitted amount has been 801,52,793

The facts are acknowledged. However, if the plaintiff sells oil to the Home branch articles, the Home branchr may do so.

(g) The operators shall use a credit card terminal owned by the Plaintiff to provide end-consumer cargo transportation services;

14% finished and sold oil, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sold the said credit to the Home Rigian Articles.

The difference between the credit card payment and the sales amount of oil supplied to the Home branch articles by deducting the difference.

As such, the amount of cash refund shall be deducted from the amount of cash sale omitted.

Therefore, the above 801,52,793 won cannot be considered as the value-added tax base, the subject of imposition of additional tax to issue tax invoices, the amount of corporate tax revenue, and the amount of income tax change notification amount.

2) Regarding non-issuance of tax invoices

The Home Rig Articles sell oil using the credit card terminal owned by the Plaintiff.

The Home, not the Plaintiff, in total of KRW 6.425 billion in sales of the credit card of this case generated by the credit card of this case

The credit card sales of this case constitutes sales of Liuri Articles, and thus, the tax invoice of this case is not issued.

(2) No penalty shall be deemed the amount subject to such penalty tax.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the omission of cash sales

A) The tax base and tax amount on the corporation’s income under the on-site investigation method

B. In the event that a corporation finds a revenue omitted in the initial return of the corporation in question, barring any special circumstance, such as where the account book or other documentary evidence reveals that the corresponding purchase cost, etc. was separately disbursed, it shall be deemed that the total amount corresponding to the total revenue already included in the deductible expenses corresponding to the total revenue. In such cases, if a corporation wants to obtain a deduction because it omitted a report on the expenses corresponding to the omission revenue and omitted income, it shall assert and prove the omission in the calculation of the deductible expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003). Where a corporation fails to enter the sales revenue in the account book or appropriates the processing expenses in the account book despite the fact of sales, it shall be deemed that the corporation’s revenue equivalent to the amount omitted in the sales or processing expenses has been leaked out, barring any special circumstance, and in such case, it shall be proved by the claimant that the total amount omitted of the sales revenue was not leaked out from the account book (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du312474, Dec. 129, 124.

B) The aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted together with the purport of the entire argument

The following circumstances are as follows: ① the Defendant calculated KRW 801,552,793 on the Plaintiff’s cash sales omitted amount based on the difference between the Plaintiff’s cash sales data recorded in the Plaintiff’s POS system and the Plaintiff’s cash sales declaration amount, and the POS system automatically calculated the Plaintiff’s sales amount by date, and the sales amount per se is calculated by accurate calculation, so the data pertaining to cash sales under the POS system can be deemed as a specific and objective material that serves as a basis for the on-site investigation. The Plaintiff also recognized that the omitted amount is KRW 801,52,793 in total. ② The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff restored the records of the POS system, stating the amount returned to the Articles 9 through 12 of the POS system from the amendment of the Plaintiff’s claim and the cause of the claim, to the Articles 801,552,793 in total. However, the Plaintiff cannot verify the source or circumstances of the aforementioned POS system’s entry in the instant POS system (including each number).)

However, there is no clear material to know the specific amount of return (the date of payment, amount, basis for calculation, etc.). ④ The Plaintiff and the Home Rig Articles committed tort in aiding and abetting the Defendant’s act of receiving fuel subsidies from local governments by selling oil as fuel for vehicles to providers of cargo transportation services, and thereby aiding and abetting the Defendant’s act of receiving fuel subsidies from local governments. bb does not exclude the possibility of giving testimony different from the facts to conceal one’s tort as an accomplice of the above tort. As such, the Plaintiff’s testimony to the effect that the amount of return once paid from the Plaintiff is KRW 6 million or KRW 10 million through 10 million is difficult to believe in the absence of any separate evidence; 5) The value-added tax in the Republic of Korea adopting the pre-stage tax credit is in the form of transaction tax that imposes on the external type of business, not substantial income, and thus, the Plaintiff’s act of returning the same type of expenses as the Plaintiff’s ordinary business or the amount of expenses that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff should be determined as follows.

In full view of the fact that there is no relation with the general gas station business and that it is difficult to expect expenditure to a corporation operating a oil sales business normally, the testimony of Gap 9 through 12 (including each number) and witness bb is insufficient to admit the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on additional tax related to non-issuance portion of tax invoice

In rectifying any error or omission in the details of return, such as a taxpayer’s tax base and amount of tax, due to an error or omission, it shall be based on the account books or evidence (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du264, Apr. 24, 200

9526, supra, the following evidence is acknowledged by adding the aforementioned evidence to the purport of the entire pleadings:

In other words, ① The amount omitted in sales of the credit card of this case shall be the Home Liberian Articles.

Sale of oil sold to the Home Rigianian Articles, and sale of oil sold by the plaintiff to the Home Rigian Articles

The following facts are not the details; ② The Defendant did not return the cash to the Home Rig Articles.

The assertion that the Home Rigian article was settled by way of paying cash to the plaintiff.

However, in the course of door-to-face questions with the Defendant’s employees, the Home Rig Articles cc, dd, e stated that the customers have paid most of the oil by credit card, and that there was almost no cash settlement.

Therefore, the entry of No. 6-3 of the evidence No. 6-3 alone that the Home Rig Articles pay the plaintiff cash.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the settlement was made by the method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In full view of the facts, each statement of No. 3, No. 6-1 to 5, and No. 7 is alone.

Value-added tax shall be imposed on the amount omitted from sales of the credit card of this case due to non-issuance of tax invoice.

It is insufficient to recognize the subject amount as the subject amount and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's objection

Part of the argument is justified.

3) Scope of revocation

In a case where a party cannot calculate the legitimate amount of tax to be imposed lawfully because he/she failed to submit objective tax base and the allegations and materials supporting the tax amount until the closing of pleadings, the entire taxation disposition should be revoked. In such a case, the court does not have the duty to identify the amount of tax to be imposed actively by its authority and calculate the amount of tax to be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28, 1995).

Based on the above legal principles, the part on imposition of additional tax on each of the first, second, second, second, second, 2012 related to the non-issuance of the tax invoice among the disposition of this case should be revoked. However, the evidence submitted by the date of the closing of the argument of this case alone alone is the home page.

Since it is difficult to specify the sale amount of oil sold to this article, the defendant is against the plaintiff.

Each of the above value-added taxes imposed shall be revoked in full.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is not accepted.

Therefore, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.