beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.23 2017구합22130

주류출고량감량처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 23, 1982, the Plaintiff obtained a comprehensive liquor wholesale license from the Defendant for sale of all alcoholic beverages except for general consignment and spirits, and operates a liquor sales business in Gyeongsan City B.

B. The Defendant, while granting a comprehensive license for the wholesale business of alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff, stipulated that the matters to be observed at the time of the sale to the effect that “if alcoholic beverages are sold to a non-licensed dealer, the license is revoked.”

C. From September 6, 2016 to November 14, 201, the commissioner of the Daegu Regional Tax Office tracking and investigating the Plaintiff’s distribution process of alcoholic beverages in the second period (i.e., July 1 to December 31, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) or first period (i.e., January 1 to June 30; hereinafter the same shall apply) of 2013, and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation.

The Plaintiff violated the duty to issue tax invoices for each taxable period from the second to the first period from the 2013th 2016 as follows, and the amount of violation is at least 358/1,000 of the average total sales of alcoholic beverages, and is at least 10/1,000.

1) The Plaintiff issued an excessive tax invoice of KRW 19 million in excess of the supply value of 43 million in the first period of 2016, even though the Plaintiff did not supply alcoholic beverages to 43 companies, including “C,” etc., by using an office liquor card terminal. ② The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 19 million in excess of the supply value of 13 companies, such as “E,” which is a transaction partner, even though he actually supplied alcoholic beverages to D during the first period of 2016. ③ The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 48 million in excess of the supply value of 13 companies, such as “E,” which is a transaction partner, even if he actually supplied alcoholic beverages to F during the second period of 2013 to 1, 2016.