.

1. The Defendant:

(a) Value-added tax for KRW 7,33,460 on December 1, 2017, imposed on Plaintiff A for December 1, 2015; and

Each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 6,899,360 for 2015;

B. Value-added tax for the first year of 2015, which was imposed on Plaintiff BB on December 1, 2017, KRW 27,022,590; and

Each disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 22,958,420 for the second period of value-added tax in 2015;

C. On December 6, 2017, part of the value-added tax of 21,415,440 won imposed on PlaintiffCC in December 6, 2015

over-disposition,

D. Value-added tax of 16,481,120 won for 2015 offered to Plaintiff D on December 28, 2017; and

Each disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 6,327,570 for the second period of value-added tax in 2015;

E. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance of KRW 9,503,940 for value-added tax of KRW 2015 for Plaintiff EE on December 12, 2017

Excessive Disposition

All cancellations.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are entrepreneurs engaged in entertainment tavern business in Daegu Metropolitan City.

(b) Investigation by the commissioner of regional tax office;

00. The Director of the Regional Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Investigation Office") shall be from May 27, 2016 to July 15, 2016.

In the course of conducting a field investigation, the 2015 company's daily sales details of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "the electronic information of this case") conducted a tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages to the GG alcoholic beverage company (hereinafter referred to as "the tax investigation of this case").

C) the USB in the form was secured. Based on this, the investigating authority secured the tax against the Plaintiffs by the non-party company.

It confirms the supply of alcoholic beverages without delivering the statement, and taxation data of these details;

The head of the competent tax office notified the defendant.

C. Imposition of value-added tax on the plaintiffs

1) According to the above taxation data, the Defendant calculated the omitted sales amount corresponding to the purchase amount by means of an estimated investigation by applying the national average added value rate of entertainment tavern to the total purchase amount omitted by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant calculated the omitted sales amount corresponding to the purchase amount by adding up the tax base reported by the Plaintiffs to the existing tax base, and added the reduced and exempted tax amount and the already paid tax amount, and added the additional tax amount to the Plaintiffs, the value-added tax was corrected and notified.

AA Value-Added Tax for 1st 2015 December 1, 2017

Value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2015 December 1, 2017, 10,642,890

BB Value-Added Tax for 1st year 2015 December 27, 2017,022,590

Value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2015 on December 1, 2017

CC 2015 Value-Added Tax for December 21, 2017, December 21, 2017

DD Value-Added Tax for 1st year 2015 on December 28, 2017

Value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax, December 28, 2017, 6,327,570

EE Value-Added Tax for Second Year 2015 December 9, 2017, 503,940

2) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant revised the amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 2015 to KRW 7,33,460, and the second period of value-added tax for the second period of 2015 to KRW 6,89,360 on the ground that the amount of the corrected tax is larger than the amount of the tax calculated by estimating the estimated amount of the total purchase by applying the national average value added rate (hereinafter “the disposition of this case, including the disposition of the value-added tax remaining after correcting the amount of the reduction and the disposition of the value-added tax for the remaining plaintiffs,

(3).

D. The result of criminal and administrative litigation against the non-party company

1) A non-party company and its representative, V was charged with committing a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by supplying alcoholic beverages without issuing a tax invoice to entertainment tavern business operators, including the Plaintiffs, as set forth in the aforementioned sub-paragraph (b), at the 00 District Court (2017 High Gohap00).

2) However, the above court rendered a judgment of innocence on November 17, 2017 to the non-party company and the JJ on the ground that the tax officials belonging to the Investigation Agency acquired the electronic information of this case in USB owned by the non-party company without a prior and subsequent search and seizure warrant from the court during the tax investigation process of this case, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence for conviction. The prosecutor appealed against it, but the appellate court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on the same ground as the first instance court on February 22, 2018, and the above judgment of innocence became final and conclusive.

3) Meanwhile, the non-party company’s revocation of its license for alcoholic beverage sales business related to Paragraph (b) against the head of the tax office 00 district court (2016Gudan000), reduction of alcoholic beverage sales capacity and imposition of value-added tax, and corporate tax

AA, BB February 23, 2018, June 29, 2018

CC, DD March 3, 2018, June 21, 2018

EE on March 8, 2018, May 17, 2018

The administrative litigation was filed to seek the cancellation of the disposition(hereinafter referred to as "related disposition").

On October 19, 2018, the court below revoked the relevant disposition ex officio by the director of the tax office.

The recommendations for mediation were presented by both parties, and the defendant 00 director of the tax office revoked the relevant dispositions ex officio, and the non-party company voluntarily withdrawn the administrative litigation.

(e) Procedures of the previous trial;

The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal as follows:

However, all of the appeals were dismissed.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 9, before oral argument.

The purpose of body

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The electronic information of this case, which is the basis of the tax base, constitutes an unlawful evidence that the investigating agency collected in violation of the due process principle, and thus cannot be deemed as the basis of the instant disposition.

2) In addition, according to Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax base of the instant disposition was determined on the basis of the amount omitted sales calculated by the national average added value ratio, although the tax base should be examined and determined based on the taxpayer’

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) In the field of tax law, the principle of the rule of law is expressed as the principle of the no taxation without the law (Article 59 of the Constitution). The basic content of the principle of no taxation without the law is that the items and rates of taxes, other taxation requirements, and procedures for imposing and collecting taxes should be prescribed by law. The tax liability is automatically established when the taxation requirements stipulated by law are met. However, even if a tax liability is established pursuant to the provisions of law, in order to ensure that subsequent procedures, such as tax payment and collection, are performed by the tax authority, the pertinent facts constituting taxation requirements should be accurately grasped. In this regard, the tax law grants tax officials the authority to ask questions to taxpayers or related persons as necessary and to inspect related documents, books, and other articles (Article 170 of the Income Tax Act, Article 122 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 74 of the Value-Added Tax Act, etc.). The tax investigation is a series of acts that investigate and verify the taxation requirements and collect direct and indirect materials necessary

Article 81-4(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a tax official shall conduct a tax investigation to the minimum extent necessary to realize appropriate and fair taxation, and shall not abuse his/her authority to conduct an investigation for any other purpose. The foregoing provision provides that the legitimate requirements of a tax investigation include objective necessity, minimumness, prohibition of abuse of authority, etc. The principle of a rule of law is to achieve the principle of a rule of law in the field of the tax procedure law and has legal effect as it itself. Therefore, if a tax investigation was conducted for an unlawful purpose, not for the original purpose of verifying the accuracy of the details of taxation data collection or verification of the details of taxation, then it constitutes a case of serious illegal cause in the tax investigation, and the taxation based on the taxation data collected by such tax investigation is also unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du47

B) Meanwhile, the principle of due process under Article 12(1) of the Constitution is not limited to criminal proceedings, but applies to all state actions (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 92Hun-Ga8, Dec. 24, 1992). A tax investigation is a kind of administrative investigation to realize the State’s right to impose taxation, which is unnecessary for the collection of taxation data or for the verification of the accuracy of the details of the report. Ultimately, a tax investigation is a kind of administrative investigation to realize the State’s right to impose taxation, and ultimately performs an important function to prevent tax evasion and ensure taxpayers’ faithful reporting, but the principle of due process must be observed in the exercise of the tax official’s right to conduct tax investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du91

2) Determination as to whether the instant disposition was unlawful

In light of the relevant legal principles, in light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition was conducted on the basis of an illegal tax investigation and is deemed unlawful.

A) According to the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax official shall request the submission of books, etc. to the minimum extent necessary for conducting a tax investigation (Article 81-4(3)), and (2) shall not keep books, etc. of a taxpayer at his/her discretion at the tax office for the purpose of a tax investigation (including the investigation of a tax offence under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act), but (3) may keep books, etc. submitted voluntarily by a person with legitimate authority such as a taxpayer, holder or custodian within the minimum extent necessary for the purpose of investigation with the consent of the taxpayer and temporarily keep them at the tax office (Article 81-10(2)

(4) Where such books, etc. of a taxpayer are to be kept temporarily at the tax office, the taxpayer shall be temporarily kept.

Article 81-10 (3) and (5) where a taxpayer requests the return of books, etc. temporarily kept, the account books, etc. shall be returned within 14 days from the date of the request for return (Article 81-10 (4).In light of the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax investigation has the nature of a voluntary investigation conducted on the premise of the taxpayer's consent and approval to the minimum extent to achieve the purpose. Therefore, in a simple tax investigation procedure, compulsory investigation or search and seizure, which is a kind of investigation without the consent or approval of the other party to the investigation, is not allowed.

B) However, in the course of conducting the instant tax investigation on May 27, 2016, the tax official of the Investigation Agency (hereinafter “Investigation Agency”) made the Nonparty Company’s employees out of the office, and then his position.

In order to find out the USB owned by the non-party company, and search and seize the electronic information of this case without the consent of the SS or the non-party company without permission. ② Following that, the fact that the non-party company, the representative director of the non-party company, shows the printed out of the electronic information of this case, and submitted a confirmation to the J that the actual transaction details are identical, can be acknowledged by the entry of the evidence No. 1.

According to the above facts, the instant tax investigation not only violated the procedures and methods of the tax investigation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, but also violates the due process principle under the Constitution, the procedure for the punishment of tax offenses, or the warrant requirement under the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is a serious illegal cause. As such, the instant electronic information acquired through the unlawful procedure, and the instant disposition based on the J’s confirmation document prepared under the state where such illegality is not cured, shall be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46850, Dec. 27, 2016).

C) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant tax investigation, a kind of administrative investigation, cannot be applied to the exclusionary rule of illegally collected evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act. Even if the instant tax investigation is unlawful, the Plaintiffs are not the direct counter-party of the instant tax investigation, and thus, it is not a party whose substantial content

However, in the case of a series of illegal grounds leading to the administrative disposition, the validity of the disposition is also affected as a matter of course. Therefore, the validity of the disposition can be denied even if the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence, unless there is a serious reason for illegality.

In addition, the principle of due process prescribed in the Constitution functions as well as the function of protecting individuals' lives, freedom and property, and it functions as suppressing public officials' illegal acts.

The principle of due process shall apply to the plaintiffs just because they are not the other party to the investigation of this case.

not be required to do so.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.