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

3. The disposition stated in Paragraph 1 shall be suspended until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is rendered.

A. On April 27, 1994, the Plaintiff was engaged in the dilution beverage manufacturing business, and obtained a license for alcoholic beverage direct sales outlet from the Defendant on April 27, 1994, to sell alcoholic beverages produced at the Plaintiff’s △△ retail outlet (400,000 No. 000).

B. On July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive transaction agreement with BB distribution company holding a license for alcoholic beverage brokerage business (hereinafter “B distribution”) and supplied alcoholic beverages to BB distribution.

C. The Plaintiff sold all the products manufactured by the Plaintiff from around December 2013 to around 2014 in units of gambling, such as 6 main entry to 20 main entry, etc., to promote the sale of alcoholic beverage products (hereinafter “the instant special events”) and held a special event that sells the consumer price less than 20 won per unit (hereinafter “the instant special events”).

D. On November 2015, 2015, the Director of the Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff; (b) deemed that “the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff’s affiliates or customers while carrying out the instant privileges; (c) instead of issuing a tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not supply alcoholic beverages to BB distribution; and (d) notified the Defendant of the fact that “The Plaintiff violated the obligation to issue a tax invoice (tax invoice processing issuance) by issuing a tax invoice to BB distribution.”

E. On February 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff violated Articles 17(3) and 15(1)4 of the Liquor Tax Act by failing to issue or processing a tax invoice; and (b) issued a disposition suspending the Plaintiff’s license for the sales business of alcoholic beverage stores for one month (from March 10, 2016 to April 9, 2016) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap's 1 through 5, 10, 13 through 16, 19 (including virtual numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive liquor supply contract with BB distribution and supplied alcoholic beverages to consumers through BB distribution. While exercising the instant privileges, the Plaintiff requested cooperation from BB distribution in the promotional event, and the Plaintiff and BB distribution agreed to the request, thereby entering into a contract between BB distribution and the Plaintiff on the process of exercising the instant privileges. According to such contract, BB distribution was supplied with alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff and sold them to consumers, and the Plaintiff was in charge of transportation and delivery to consumers. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have breached its duty to issue a tax invoice by issuing a false tax invoice to BB distribution or not issuing a tax invoice to consumers.

2) The grounds for a disposition suspending a license under Article 15(1)4 of the Liquor Tax Act are premised on the fact that a licensee of alcoholic beverages violates the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the Plaintiff only supplied alcoholic beverages under a contract with BB distribution and issued a tax invoice, and did not have any intention to avoid awareness or tax that the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice, and thus, there was no intention to violate the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

3) Article 3(1) of the National Tax Service’s notice of delegation of orders concerning the transfer of alcoholic beverages, method of takeover, other parties and others (Notice No. 2015-29, hereinafter “Notification”) provides that a manufacturer shall deliver alcoholic beverages only to a person who has obtained a license for alcoholic beverage sales. Since the meaning of delivery and delivery is distinguishable from each other, even if the Plaintiff directly transported and delivers alcoholic beverages to consumers, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have delivered alcoholic beverages to consumers, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated the Notice. Even if the Plaintiff violated Article 3(1) of the Notice, the violation of the Notice does not constitute grounds for the disposition of suspension of license under the Liquor Tax Act.

4) In light of the fact that the sales volume of the Plaintiff is significantly reduced due to the instant disposition and that the Plaintiff’s market share is expected to gradually decline in the future, the instant disposition is a harsh disposition to the extent that threatens the existence of the Plaintiff, and is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretionary power.

(b) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First, we examine whether the Plaintiff did not issue or processed the tax invoice.

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff actually sold alcoholic beverages to household consumers, but the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice as if he actually sold them. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to BB distribution other than household consumers and the BB distribution sold alcoholic beverages to household consumers through the instant special purchase event in light of the aforementioned evidence: (a) the Plaintiff’s identification card Nos. 18 and 18; and (b) the overall purport of pleadings and arguments.

① Article 4 of the General Agreement on the Supply of Alcoholic Beverages prepared by the Plaintiff between BB distribution and BB distribution provides that “the Plaintiff shall supply BB distribution with the product at the ex-factory price, and BB distribution shall be freely determined in accordance with commercial transaction practices, and the Plaintiff may encourage BB distribution at an appropriate level of consumer price, and Article 5(4) of the Agreement provides that “the Plaintiff may request BB distribution to cooperate in sales promotion activities for BB distribution.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff may request BB distribution to cooperate in sales promotion activities by sending a written request for cooperation in sales promotion. Accordingly, there were grounds for the agreement between BB distribution and BB distribution on the implementation of the instant special sales activity with the content of reducing the sales price.

② From the first period to the second period of 2014, BB distribution was supplied with alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 406,252,000 in total from the Plaintiff’s insurance sales store in 2013 to the second period of 2014. Meanwhile, by providing household consumers with alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 432,784,00 in total, and thereby obtaining profits of KRW 26,532,00 in total during the same period. This also constitutes non-profitable profits if BB distribution did not intervene as a party to a transaction between the Plaintiff and household consumers.

③ In order to receive the sales proceeds of alcoholic beverages, BB received the sales proceeds of alcoholic beverages by receiving credit card payments from household consumers or receiving cash through Plaintiff’s employees, and even if the Plaintiff delivered alcoholic beverages directly to household consumers for convenience, the delivery agent or method of goods cannot be a critical standard for determining the contracting party. Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot supply alcoholic beverages to household consumers through a seller of alcoholic beverages such as BB distribution, etc. as a part of active efforts to promote his own products, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff directly supplied alcoholic beverages to household consumers on behalf of BB distribution.

④ If the Plaintiff appears to have supplied liquor to household consumers as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff must issue a tax invoice to each household consumer. On the other hand, the liquor tax amount that the Plaintiff supplied during the taxable period at the store in Cheonggu Office is the total of KRW 406,252,00, while the liquor amount that the Plaintiff supplied to the household consumers is the total of KRW 432,784,000, the supply price between the supplier and the supplier is inconsistent. Furthermore, the tax authority deemed that the purchase tax invoice received from the Plaintiff during the pertinent taxable period was processed through the resolution to rectify the value-added tax on BB distribution, deeming that the purchase tax invoice received from the Plaintiff was processed, and thus, did not deduct the input tax amount received from the Plaintiff out of the total input tax amount of the BB distribution, and on the other hand, it appears that BB distribution was contradictory in recognizing that BB distribution was supplied to the consumers by failing to deduct the total input tax amount.

2) Ultimately, since the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to BB distribution and did not issue a tax invoice to household consumers, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was unlawful without further examining the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition. And according to the records of this case, there is no evidence that the execution of the disposition of this case requires urgent measures to prevent irrecoverable damage caused to the plaintiff, and otherwise there is no other evidence that the suspension of execution may cause serious damage to the public welfare. Thus, the execution of this case shall be suspended ex officio until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is rendered.