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. From November 27, 2006 to July 7, 2007, the Plaintiff served as the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).
B. As a result of the partial investigation into the instant company from March 28, 2009 to January 15, 2010, the head of Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff failed to report the amount of KRW 171,511,784 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “the instant revenue amount”) of the sales revenue from the instant company from March 21, 2007 to the end of June 2007, deeming that the Plaintiff’s performance of the partial investigation into the instant company was 171,51,784 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “the instant revenue amount”) and notified the instant company of KRW 27,942,130 and corporate tax of KRW 252,630 for the business year 207.
C. On July 29, 2010, the instant company appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On October 25, 2010, the Tax Tribunal revoked the disposition imposing the value-added tax and the corporate tax on the instant company by deeming the amount of KRW 171,51,784 as the income of the Plaintiff, not the said company, as the income of the said Plaintiff, and the head of Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office notified the Defendant of the disposition as taxation data.
After the Defendant registered the Plaintiff as a business entity, on June 1, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 31,97,590 of the value-added tax of KRW 1,007.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 26, 2014 upon receipt of an objection on September 5, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on June 25, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4-2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion, as the representative director of the company of this case, sold functional trees and used them as expenses for the above company's mutual aid business. However, the plaintiff's name is required to distinguish the sales activities from the above company's mutual aid business.