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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2012, the part of the value-added tax for the second period portion of 2008 that the Defendant exceeded the OOOO directors among the OO directors of the value-added tax for the second period of 208, the part that exceeded the OO directors among the O directors of the value-added tax for the first period of 2009, the part that exceeded the OO directors among the O directors of the value-added tax for the second period of 209, the part that exceeded the OO directors among the O directors of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010, the part that exceeded the OO directors among the O directors of the value-added tax for the second period of 208, the part that exceeded the OO directors among the O directors of the 209 corporate tax for the corporate tax for 209, and the part that exceeded the O directors directors among the O directors in 2010, and the part that exceeded the O directors directors.

A. On September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was dissolved by a resolution at an extraordinary general meeting on July 5, 2013, when it had a place of business in the OOO-O-O (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. The Plaintiff purchased red ginseng, red ginseng products, etc. (hereinafter “instant product”) from BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”), and installed lecture rooms, product display rooms, etc. to sell the instant product at the instant business establishment.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, at the time of the tour guide's entry of tourists recruited in each nationwide place of business into the instant place of business, tourists purchased the instant product after hearing an explanation about the instant product in the lecture room established within the instant place of business.

D. The Plaintiff reported value-added tax and corporate tax on the basis of sales that only OOO or OOOO for family use, and OOOO or OOO for personal use, sold to tourists for family use in the instant case of red ginseng products. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not report sales on the ground that Red ginseng products were provided to customers free of charge.

E. On January 10, 2012 through March 23, 2012, the commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office calculated the actual sales (OOO) of the Plaintiff from February 2, 2008 to February 2, 2010 based on the sales volume and consumer sales price on the customer list managed by the Plaintiff, and determined that the Plaintiff’s actual sales (OOOO) was omitted. In addition, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff sold red ginsenggel products for the said period and did not report the sales (OOOO won) by omitting sales.

F. On June 1, 2012, the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the same fact, and the Defendant issued a decision of correction of value-added tax and corporate tax as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(unit: Won)

Items of Taxation

208

209

2010

Total

2. 2

1 1

2. 2

1 1

2. 2

Value-added Tax

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Corporate Tax

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

G. On December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed for a national tax trial on December 6, 2012, but was dismissed on April 23, 2013.

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

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, as a kind of intermediary wholesaler, sold the goods of this case to intermediary merchants (CCC) and received sales proceeds (family use or OOO or OOO or OOO) from intermediary merchants (family use or individual use). However, the defendant is deemed to have sold the goods directly to consumers (family use OO or OOO or OOO) and the difference between the consumer price and the sales amount sold to the intermediary, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

In addition, the defendant calculated profits on the basis of the list of customers secured by the plaintiff at a business level, unilaterally calculated the omitted sales amount without disregarding the actual market price at which discount sales are conducted, and calculated profits by including red ginsenggel products offered free of charge in the omission of sales. The disposition of this case is unlawful in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) After purchasing the instant goods from BB at a low price, the Plaintiff installed a lecture room, product display room, etc. to promote the said goods at the instant place of business, and displayed the instant goods.

2) For the sale of the instant product, the Plaintiff: (a) had a well-known sportsman as its president; (b) separately recruited sales experts; and (c) concluded a sales contract with the content that the sales agent for the instant product was represented by sales agent; and (d) paid sales allowances in addition to monthly wages.

3) The Plaintiff gathered tourists living in various regions across the country through so-called so-called so-called "Gad' tourism invitation books, and had the business president, professional instructors, and employees in charge of publicity employed by the Plaintiff engage in promotional activities for the instant goods. If some tourists indicate their intent to purchase, the Plaintiff made the customer enter the customer's list indicating personal information, contact details, the quantity and amount of the goods purchased, and credit card numbers, and directly transferred the goods they want to purchase to the customer.

4) Of the instant products, the individual red ginseng frequency from BB is merely about KRW 00,00, but among the sales proceeds, the tourists sold out of KRW 00,00 to KRW 00,00, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000,000, KRW 00,000,000,000, and KRW 50-75,000,000,000, was paid to KRW 50,000,000.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the so-called so-called "DD" company in order to recover the price of goods from the customers who reside in each country throughout the country, and the above D acquired the claim from the Plaintiff for the price of goods and recovered the price of the goods from the clients, but paid the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting the cost of the d'd's expense from the remainder at a certain rate (20 to 30

6) The Plaintiff directly prepared and kept a customer list indicating the telephone number and address purchase volume of the customers purchased, and prepared a comprehensive daily report for sale and a return ledger, and returned by revocation of purchase, etc., the Plaintiff has been excluded from the revenue amount while managing it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence of Nos. 3 through 13, purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2's statements and arguments in the above facts, the plaintiff prepared a place of business of this case equipped with promotional materials and facilities after purchasing the goods of this case from BB at low price, gather them through D, and arrange for active sales activities by using business experts, etc. employed by the plaintiff, and sold the goods of this case by requiring the customers who decided to purchase the goods to prepare a purchase card and hand them over directly to the customers. After the sale of the goods, the plaintiff continued management through the customer management card which arranged the name, address, telephone number, etc. of the customers after the purchase, even based on the data submitted by the plaintiff at the value-added tax return, it can be recognized that the sales price of the goods of this case was stated as OO and OO members. In full view of this, the plaintiff's sale price of the goods of this case is not a wholesale sale price of the goods of this case to the general consumers, but it seems that it was difficult to view that the plaintiff paid the goods of this case to D's sales price after the sale price of this case.

In addition, comprehensively considering the purport of the whole pleadings Nos. 8, 11, 13, and 14, the head of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office and the defendant shall secure a customer list stating the address, telephone number, goods, and quantity of the purchase customer managed by the plaintiff in the plaintiff's computer system and determine the volume of sales on the basis of such list, and calculates the sales omitted based on the details of price fluctuations by the plaintiff's own daily and daily sales status, and verify the fact that the sales price of the Hegel products separately sold other than Hegel products provided free of charge on the basis of the current status of the sale of the Hegel products listed in the above comprehensive daily report, etc. can be recognized. Thus, the defendant calculated sales volume and sales amount based on objective data and disposed of this case, and it is difficult to see that there is any illegality as argued by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.