2. The plaintiff company's claim for dedicated goods distribution is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit between the plaintiff ○○ Logistics Co., Ltd., AA and the defendant are borne by the defendant, and the costs of lawsuit between the plaintiff exclusive logistics company and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff dedicated

Cheong-gu Office

Pursuant to Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (1) of this Article, the Defendant’s disposition on June 1, 2016, exceeding KRW 6,146,440, more than KRW 120,000,000,000 out of KRW 126,146,46, and KRW 59,354,100,000, which exceeds KRW 50,000,000,000 out of KRW 5,000,00 for the second period of two years, 2013, KRW 126,146,440, and KRW 54,632,220,000 among KRW 5,00 for the second period of two years, 2014, KRW 5,80,000 for the first period of one year, and KRW 20,000 for the distribution of goods (the Plaintiff ○○ and AA). However, without modifying the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff’s claim was amended.

A. The Plaintiff ○○ Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff ○○ Logistics”) is a company established for the purpose of software sales business on September 2, 2004, and the Plaintiff dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the distribution of drinking water

B. In the process of investigating the Plaintiffs from December 22, 2015 to May 27, 2016, the Director of the △△△△ Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that the Plaintiffs omitted sales of KRW 8,230,281,292 at the time of filing a value-added tax return during the value-added tax period from the first to the second half of 2015; and (b) issued a processed tax invoice of KRW 893,05,993 without real transactions to Co., Ltd. and notified the Defendant.

C. On June 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax of KRW 1,067,678,580 on the Plaintiff’s ○○ Logistics (hereinafter “disposition on the Plaintiff’s ○○ Logistics”); value-added tax of KRW 245,932,760 on the Plaintiff’s dedicated logistics; and value-added tax of KRW 205,985,970 on the Plaintiff’s dedicated logistics (hereinafter “disposition on the Plaintiff’s dedicated logistics”); and the value-added tax of KRW 205,985,970 on the Plaintiff AA (hereinafter “Disposition on the Plaintiff AA”).

D. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of each of the instant dispositions. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request on December 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

3. Whether a disposition on the Plaintiff ○○ Logistics was lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff ○○ Logistics Claim

원고 ○○물류는, 피고가 원고 ○○물류에 대하여 매출 신고를 누락하였다고 지적하고 있는 부분 중 ★★★도매유통 ●● ●●점(대표:최BB, 이하 '★★★도매유통 ●●점'이라 한다)으로부터 송금 받은 5,295,000원, ◇◇유통 신CC으로부터 송금 받은 13,000,000원, ■■유통(김DD)으로부터 송금 받은 5,019,057원, ▲▲상사(이FF)로부터 송금 받은 7,491,400원, ▼▼유통(왕GG)으로부터 송금 받은 1,500만 원, HH음료 주식회사로부터 송금 받은 4,228,420원, 이PP로부터 송금 받은 8,261,740원은 모두 원고 ○○물류의 매출 금액이 아니므로, 이를 누락된 매출액으로 보고 한 피고의 원고 ○○물류에 대한 처분은 위법하다는 취지로 주장한다.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In principle, the taxpayer’s taxation requirement that the amount deposited in the account of a financial institution constitutes sales or revenue, and that it is omitted from the return is a matter of principle by the tax authority. However, the taxpayer’s taxation requirement can be proved by either disclosing the fact that the amount deposited in the account of a financial institution constitutes sales or revenue in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process or by revealing indirect facts that can be inferred. In such cases, whether such presumption can be determined shall be based on whether the account of a financial institution is an external type of sales or revenue in light of whether the account was used as the principal deposit or management account for the sales or revenue subject to taxation, the date of deposit, the other party and the amount of deposit, etc., and on the contrary, the proportion of sales or revenue transaction to the account, the possibility of mixing funds for other than sales or revenue, and the amount deposited in the account of the financial institution. In addition, even if the account of a financial institution can be presumed to constitute sales or revenue as its principal deposit or revenue, it cannot be readily concluded that such deposit or revenue constitutes an individual sales revenue or revenue account or reporting type.

The burden of proof as to the existence of a tax-exempt fact must be proved by the circumstances in which the other party is not subject to the application of the empirical rule if the tax authority is aware of the alleged fact in light of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008).

In this case, the plaintiff AA prepared a confirmation document (Evidence 2) which acknowledges the omission of each of the plaintiffs' respective sales facts in the tax investigation, but thereafter, the omission of sales is reversed and disputed it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that it was reversed and proved specifically is examined.

2) Determination

가) ★★★도매유통 ●●점에 대한 5,295,000원 매출 누락 여부에 관한 판단

원고 ○○물류는, ★★★도매유통 JJ점(대표: 최KK, 이하 '★★★도매유통 JJ점'이라 한다)이 원고에게 지급하여야 할 5,295,000원을 위 최KK의 부친인 최BB이 최KK으로부터 현금으로 지급받아 이를 원고 ○○물류 명의 국민은행 계좌에 대신 지급한 것으로서, 위 돈은 원고의 ★★★도매유통 ●●점에 대한 매출에 해당되지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제6, 23호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면, 원고 ○○물류가 ★★★도매유통 ●●점으로부터 지급받은 위 5,295,000원은 매출금액이라고 단정하기 어렵다. 따라서 이에 관한 원고 ○○물류의 주장은 이유 있다.

(1) 갑 제6호증의 3, 4, 갑 제23호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고 ○○물류와 ★★★도매유통 ●●점, JJ점과 사이의 2013. 4. 27.부터 2015. 10. 27.까지의 세금계산서 발행내역 및 대금수수 내역은 아래 표 기재와 같다. 이에 의하면, 원고 ○○물류가 ★★★도매유통 JJ점에 발행한 세금계산서의 발행금액보다 원고 ○○물류 명의 계좌에 입금된 금액이 8,907,890원 가량 적어, 원고 ○○물류가 위 차액 상당액을 현금으로 지급받는 등 다른 방법으로 지급받았을 가능성을 배제할 수 없다.

(2) 갑 제6호증의 2(사실확인서)의 기재에 의하면, ★★★도매유통 ●●점을 운영하는 최BB은 ★★★도매유통 JJ점으로부터 현금 5,295,000원을 받아 이를 원고 ○○물류 명의 국민은행 계좌(계좌번호 : ○○○○○○-○○-○○○○○○)에 입금하여 대신 전달하였다고 진술하고 있다.

B) Determination as to whether sales of KRW 13,000,000 on △△ NewCC distribution was omitted

The plaintiff ○○ Logistics asserts that the above amount was repaid KRW 13,00,000,000 that the plaintiff ○○ Logistics lent to the Yellow L, and that it was not the sales to ○○ NewCC.

In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Plaintiff ○○ Logistics received the above KRW 13,00,000,000, which was paid by Plaintiff ○○○ Logistics from △△ NewCC in distribution, as sales amount, based on the respective descriptions of Plaintiff 11 and 24 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings. Accordingly, the above assertion by Plaintiff ○○ Logistics is with merit.

(1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 11 and 24, Plaintiff ○○ Logistics remitted total of KRW 13,000,000 to ○○ NewCC during the period from December 18, 2012 to February 8, 2013, and ○○○○ Distribution NewCC remitted total of KRW 14,50,000 to Plaintiff ○○○ Logistics during the period from July 3, 2013 to March 27, 2014. Plaintiff ○○○ Logistics claimed that KRW 14,50,000 was paid from NewCC during the period from November 27, 2013, and Plaintiff ○○ Logistics received KRW 13,00,000 from NewCC during the said period, and Plaintiff ○○ Logistics transferred the money to Plaintiff ○○○○○ Logistics. This is consistent with the amount that was remitted to Plaintiff ○○○.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that Plaintiff ○○ Logistics actually supplied materials necessary for the business, such as MPM shooting cases and freezing and freezing, and received the said materials (Article 13,000,000 won from Plaintiff ○○ Logistics on February 10, 2013). However, according to the evidence No. 11-2 (j) of Plaintiff 11, the Defendant may recognize that the Yellow L borrowed KRW 13,00,000 from Plaintiff ○○ Logistics on February 10, 2013, and the Defendant did not submit any evidence that the said money is the price for the goods, so it cannot be concluded that the said KRW 13,00,000 is the price for the goods for the goods store.

다) ■■유통(김DD)에 대한 5,019,057원 매출 누락 여부에 관한 판단

원고 ○○물류는, 위 금액은 ■■유통(김DD)이 2014. 9. 30. 원고 ○○물류 국민은행 계좌에 잘못 송금한 돈으로서, 이 부분은 ■■유통(김DD)에 대한 매출이 아니라고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제13호증의 2의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, ■■유통(김DD)이 2014. 9. 30. 원고 ○○물류에 5,019,057원을 송금하였으나, 원고 ○○물류가 같은 날 ■■유통(김DD)에 5,019,057원을 그대로 반환하였음을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이에 의하면, 원고 ○○물류가 ■■유통(김DD)으로부터 지급받은 위 5,019,057원은 매출금액이라고 단정하기 어렵다. 따라서 이에 관한 원고 ○○물류의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

라) ▲▲상사(이FF)에 대한 7,491,400원 매출 누락 여부에 관한 판단

원고 ○○물류는, 위 금액은 원고 ○○물류가 2015. 1. 31. 주식회사 NN음료에 지급해야 할 8,441,901원을 ▲▲상사(이FF)에 착오로 송금한 것인데, ▲▲상사(이FF)가 원고 ○○물류에 대한 결제대금 95만 원을 공제하고 나머지 7,491,400원을 반환한 것으로서, 이 부분은 ▲▲상사(이FF)에 대한 매출이 아니라고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제14호증의 2의 기재에 의하면, 원고 ○○물류가 2015. 1. 31. 15:02:23 ▲▲상사(이FF)에 8,441,901원을 송금한 사실, ▲▲상사(이FF)가 같은 날 15:17:18 원고 ○○물류에 7,491,400원을 송금한 사실, 원고 ○○물류가 같은 날 15:19:23 주식회사 NN음료에 8,441,901원을 송금한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다. 이에 따르면, 원고 ○○물류가 ▲▲상사(이FF)에 송금한 8,441,901원은 원고의 주장대로 착오 송금한 것으로 보이므로, 원고 ○○물류가 ▲▲상사(이FF)으로부터 반환받은 위 7,491,400원은 매출금액으로 보이지 않는다. 따라서 이에 관한 원고 ○○물류의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

마) ▼▼유통(왕GG)에 대한 1,500만 원 매출 누락 여부에 관한 판단

원고 ○○물류는, 위 금액은 ▼▼유통(왕GG)가 2012. 5. 31. 원고 ○○물류에 착오로 송금한 것으로서, 이 부분은 ▼▼유통(왕GG)에 대한 매출이 아니라고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제15호증의 2의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, ▼▼유통 (왕GG)가 2012. 5. 31. 원고 ○○물류에 15,000,000원을 송금하였으나, 원고 ○○물류가 같은 날 ▼▼유통(왕GG)에 15,000,000원을 그대로 반환하였음을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이는 착오 송금된 것으로 보이는바, 원고 ○○물류가 ▼▼유통(왕GG)으로부터 지급받은 1,500만 원은 매출금액이라고 단정하기 어렵다. 따라서 이에 관한 원고 ○○물류의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

F) Determination as to whether the sales of HP Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 4,228,420 was omitted

Plaintiff ○○ Logistics is part of KRW 4,645,71, which Plaintiff ○○○ Logistics received from H beverage Co., Ltd. on November 10, 2015, and this part is alleged to the effect that it does not constitute sales on H beverage Co., Ltd., and the Defendant is also the person who is also the Defendant (the 6th page of preparatory document dated March 19, 2018), and the above argument by Plaintiff ○○ Logistics is with merit.

G) Determination as to the omission of sales of 8,261,740 won in PP

Plaintiff ○○ Logistics asserts to the effect that the sum of KRW 5 million borrowed from TPP on July 3, 2012 and KRW 3,261,740, which was remitted by mistake to Plaintiff ○○ Logistics on October 4, 2012, and that this portion does not constitute sales to TPP.

In light of the overall purport of the statement and pleading of evidence No. 18-2, this case: (a) transferred KRW 5 million to Plaintiff ○○ Logistics on July 3, 2012; (b) Plaintiff ○○ Logistics remitted KRW 5 million to ○○○○○○ Logistics on July 10, 2012; (c) transferred KRW 3,261,740 to Plaintiff ○○ Logistics on October 4, 2012; (d) however, Plaintiff ○○ Logistics returned KRW 3,261,740 on the same day; and (e) Plaintiff ○○ Logistics returned KRW 3,261,740 to ○○○ Logistics on the same day. Accordingly, it appears that the above money was received by Plaintiff ○○ Logistics on the same day. Accordingly, it is difficult to readily conclude that Plaintiff ○○ Logistics received KRW 8,261,740 from TPP on the sales amount. Therefore, Plaintiff ○○ Logistics’s assertion on this issue is with merit.

H) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that each of the above money constitutes the sales amount of Plaintiff ○○ Logistics, and thus, it is unlawful for the Defendant to deem that the Plaintiff ○○ Logistics omitted the report on the sales amount on a different premise.

4. Whether the disposition against the plaintiff A is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiff AA's assertion

원고 AAA는, 피고가 원고 AAA에 대하여 매출 신고를 누락하였다고 지적하고 있는 부분 중 RRR피시방(김SS)으로부터 송금 받은 260,000,000원, ▼▼유통(왕GG)로부터 송금 받은 8,800만 원, QQ물류(신TT)로부터 송금 받은 18,504,000원, 이PP로부터 송금 받은 8,250,000원은 모두 원고 AAA의 매출 금액이 아니므로, 이와 다른 전제에 선 원고 AAA에 대한 처분은 위법하다는 취지로 주장한다.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the omission of sales of KRW 260,000,000 to the RRP (S)

The plaintiff AA asserts that the above amount was repaid by the plaintiff AA to KimS, and that this part does not constitute the sale of the RRP (GS).

According to each of the statements on evidence No. 12-2, and No. 3 (Deposit Statement), KimS borrowed KRW 300,000,00 from Plaintiff AA on February 12, 2011, and entered into a loan agreement for consumption with the purport that the principal amount of KRW 300,000,000 shall be repaid in 70 times every month from March 201 to December 2016. KimS entered into a loan agreement with the purport that the principal amount of KRW 300,000 shall be repaid in 5,000 per month. KimS shall be deemed to have been paid in 5,00,000 from March 18, 201 to November 7, 2015. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff’s money was paid in 309,740,000 for the above period.

2) ▼▼유통(왕GG)에 대한 8,800만 원 매출 누락 여부에 관한 판단

원고 AAA는, 위 금액은 ▼▼유통(왕GG)이 2012. 11. 1. 원고 AAA에게 착오로 송금한 1,400만 원과 원고 ○○물류가 2012. 12. 10. ▼▼유통(왕GG)에 착오로 송금한 74,000,000원을 원고 AAA 명의 외환은행 계좌로 반환받은 것으로서, 이 부분은 ▼▼유통(왕GG)에 대한 매출이 아니라고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제15호증의 2의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 아래와 같은 사정들을 종합하면, 원고 AAA가 ▼▼유통(왕GG)로부터 지급받은 위 8,800만 원은 매출금액이라고 단정하기 어렵다. 따라서 이에 관한 원고 AAA의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

가) 갑 제15호증의 2의 기재에 의하면, ▼▼유통(왕GG)가 2012. 11. 1. 원고 AAA에게 1,400만 원을 송금하였으나, 원고 ○○물류가 다음날인 2012. 11. 2. ▼▼유통(왕GG)에게 1,400만 원을 그대로 반환한 사실, 원고 ○○물류가 2012. 12. 10. ▼▼유통(왕GG)에게 7,400만 원을 송금하였으나, ▼▼유통(왕GG)가 같은 날 원고 AAA에게 7,400만 원을 그대로 반환한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 이에 따르면 ▼▼유통(왕GG)과 원고 AAA는 착오송금한 것을 서로 반환한 것으로 보인다.

B) As the representative director of the Plaintiff’s ○○ Logistics, Plaintiff AA operated the Plaintiff’s ○ Logistics Project and managed the account, and appears to have used the Plaintiff’s ○ Logistics Account to transfer the funds for the Plaintiff AA’s personal business.

3) QQ물류(신TT)에 대한 18,504,000원 매출 누락 부분에 관한 판단

원고 AAA는, 위 금액은 원고 AAA가 2012년 11월, 12월경에 QQ물류(신TT)로부터 선수금으로 받은 돈인데, 그 후 계약을 이행하지 않아 이를 QQ물류(신TT)에 반환하였으므로, 이 부분은 QQ물류(신TT)에 대한 매출에 해당되지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제16호증의 2 내지 5의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 신TT은 2012년 11월, 12월에 원고 AAA로부터 물품을 공급받기 위한 선금으로 18,504,000원을 송금하였으나, 원고 AAA의 물량 미공급으로 인해 18,504,000원을 2회에 걸쳐 현금으로(2012. 12. 10. 11,848,000원, 2013. 1. 5. 6,656,000원) 전액 되돌려 받은 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고 AAA가 QQ물류(신TT)로부터 지급받은 위 18,504,000원은 매출금액이라고 단정하기 어렵다. 따라서 이에 관한 원고 AAA의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

4) Determination as to the omission of sales of KRW 8,250,000 in EP

In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Plaintiff AA received the above 8,250,000 won from this PP based on the overall purport of the statement and pleading as stated in Plaintiff AA’s evidence 18-2. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by Plaintiff AA is with merit.

A) According to the evidence evidence No. 18-2, it can be found that, on October 16, 2012, EP transferred KRW 6 million to Plaintiff AA on October 16, 2012, Plaintiff ○○ Logistics wired KRW 6 million to eP on October 22, 2012, and eP transferred KRW 2,250,000 to Plaintiff AA on March 27, 2013.

B) As the representative director of the Plaintiff’s ○○ Logistics, the Plaintiff AA seems to have managed the account of the Plaintiff’s ○○ Logistics and used it to transfer the funds for the individual business.

C) According to this, Plaintiff AA’s borrowing of KRW 6 million from thisP on October 16, 2012, and then, on October 22, 2012, Plaintiff AA appears to have used Plaintiff ○ Logistics’s account to repay KRW 6 million to this PP. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that Plaintiff AA provided goods equivalent to the above amount of this PP and received the payment therefor.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that each of the above money constitutes the amount of sales of Plaintiff AA, and thus, it is unlawful for the Defendant to deem that Plaintiff AA omitted a report on the amount of sales on a different premise.

5. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for the dedicated goods distribution

According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire argument, Plaintiff AA, a real manager of the dedicated logistics unit, is both the Plaintiff’s grounds for disposition as to the dedicated logistics unit, and the Plaintiffs do not dispute the illegality of the disposition as to the dedicated logistics unit. In other words, there is no evidence to deem that the disposition as to the Plaintiff dedicated logistics unit is unlawful. Accordingly, Plaintiff dedicated logistics claim is without merit.

6. Determination as to the scope of revocation

Whether a disposition is lawful is determined depending on whether it exceeds a legitimate amount of tax. The parties concerned may submit objective tax bases and materials supporting the tax amount until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court. When computing the legitimate amount of tax to be imposed lawfully based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the reasonable amount of tax should be revoked. However, if not, the entire amount of the taxation disposition should be revoked, and in such a case, the court does not have the duty to actively calculate the amount of tax to be imposed at its discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du622, Sept. 10, 2015).

The above money deposited in the account in the name of the plaintiff ○○ Logistics, the plaintiff ○○ Logistics, and the AA is divided into parts such as the repayment amount, erroneous remittance, sales incentive, etc. of loans unrelated to the sale. The evidence submitted alone cannot calculate the reasonable value-added tax for each year to which the plaintiff ○○ Logistics, the AA is obligated to pay. Thus, the entire disposition against the plaintiff ○○ Logistics, the plaintiff ○○ Logistics, the AA, and the AA only seek partial cancellation. As such, among each disposition in the case of this case in the attached Table 1, only the amount indicated in the column for each cancellation claim by the plaintiff ○○ Logistics and the AA among the dispositions in the attached Table 1 shall be revoked.

7. Conclusion

Thus, the claims of the plaintiff ○○ Logistics and AA are all reasonable, and they are accepted, and the claims of the plaintiff dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated