부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B, on April 21, 2006, registered its business with the trade name “D” and engaged in wholesale retail business, such as meat packaging and treatment. On December 19, 2014, the trade name was changed to “E” and the place of business was changed to “Simpo F, 1st floor” and closed on February 29, 2016.
B. On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was established as a company on May 1, 2012, whose place of business is “Yansan-si G and 1st floor,” and engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as livestock products and meat sales. On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the place of business to “Sinpo-si F and 1st floor” and closed on February 29, 2016.
The representative director of the plaintiff is B's spouse H.
C. From August 26, 2015 to November 20, 2015, the Defendant investigated the Plaintiff’s general integration with regard to the taxable period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, and thereby confirmed that the Plaintiff filed a report on a part of the sales and purchase transaction with B or a transaction subject to value-added tax, even if the Plaintiff did not report a part of the sales and purchase transaction with B or made a transaction subject to value-added tax.
On December 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of each value-added tax (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) from the first to the second period, 2012, as stated in the purport of the claim, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but received a ruling of dismissal of the claim on June 23, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is lawful on the grounds of the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserted the following grounds and asserted that the corresponding portion of the “amount claimed” in the attached Table No. 1 of this case is unlawful.
A. The plaintiff's offering of growth to B is a "goods" under the Value-Added Tax Act.