약품도매업 관련 가공매입에 대응되는 지출원가 있었는지 여부[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap3996 ( October 08, 2010)
Review Corporation 2008-0010 (Law No. 25, 2008)
Whether there was an expenditure officer responding to the processing and purchase of pharmaceutical products;
Since it is confirmed that the amount of the processed tax invoice purchased from a pharmaceutical company was paid as sales performance to the sales broker or its members, it is reasonable to determine the loss as deductible expenses.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
△△ Pharmaceutical Corporation
Head of Eastern Tax Office
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
In the first place, the defendant must cancel the corporate tax of 31,171,420 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 31,171,420 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 135,719,120 (including additional tax) for the business year from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 203, corporate tax of 130,78,430 (including additional tax) for the business year from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 204, corporate tax of 132,58,430 (including additional tax) for the business year from June 30, 204 to June 30, 204, corporate tax of 130,305, corporate tax of 204 to June 30, 2005, and the amount of income of 205, 308, 207, 2018.
1 Preliminaryly, each of the collection dispositions (including additional taxes) that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008, including KRW 13,688,030 (including additional taxes), KRW 83,039,820 (including additional taxes), the wage and salary income tax for the source year 2002, KRW 119,185,630 (including additional taxes), and the tax withholding tax for the wage and salary income for the year 2003, KRW 48,319,720 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.
2 Preliminary, it is confirmed that the notice of changes in each income amount of this case and the collection disposition of earned income tax is invalid.
2. Purport of appeal
The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.
The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "The plaintiff's primary claim may be accepted on the 7th page of the judgment of the court of first instance," and the evidence Nos. 19 through B No. 28 (including the provisional number) shall not interfere with the above recognition of the judgment, except for the correction to Eul evidence Nos. 19 and Eul evidence No. 28 (including the provisional number) with "no interference with the above recognition," and it is identical to the statement Nos. 3 and 6 (d) below, and this part of the plaintiff's argument shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act." If so, the plaintiff's primary claim shall be accepted as it is reasonable, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.