The imposition of additional tax on the first term portion of 2005 to the first term portion of 2008 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2009 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The reasoning for our court's explanation on this case is that the third party's "2012.2" among the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "209." The following additional contents are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows. (The plaintiff argues that since the Seoul place of business is separate from the sales amount of the Seoul place of business, no value-added tax can be imposed on the basis of the sales amount calculated including the sales amount of the Seoul place of business. However, the "place of business" under Article 4 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is a place where a business operator or an employee remains at all or part of the transaction, and it cannot be viewed as a place where goods are entered and released at the Seoul place of business without independent trading, but it cannot be viewed as a place where the plaintiff issued receipts and sales amount of the business at the Seoul place of business with no other order.

2. Determination on the assertion that the plaintiff added in the trial at the trial

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In addition to the value-added tax from the first half to the first half of 2005, the Defendant imposed each additional tax with the value-added tax from the first half of 2005 to the first half of 2008, and each tax notice did not state at all the type of and the basis for calculation of the additional

B. Determination

(1) When a single tax notice imposes both the principal tax and the additional tax, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation shall be separately stated in the tax notice. In addition, where multiple types of additional tax are imposed, it is natural that the taxpayer can per se identify the details of each tax disposition by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation by type of the additional tax, and accordingly, it is reasonable to ensure that the taxpayer can identify the details of each tax disposition. As such, in cases where a tax notice includes only the total amount of additional tax without disclosing the types of imposition and the basis for calculation of the amount (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

(2) In light of the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence 6-1 to 4, Gap evidence 19-1 to 7, Gap evidence 20-1 to 7, Eul evidence 20-1 to 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6-2, 30, 306 of value-added tax for the first period of June 1, 2009 (including additional tax 3,152,531), 32,471, 236 of value-added tax for the second period of 205 (including additional tax 10,529,79, 794), 206, 207, 30, 206, 207, 30, 47, 205 of value-added tax for the second period of 206 (including additional tax for 6,679,743, 206), 207, 305, 47, 257

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed for lack of reason. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the disposition imposing the penalty tax of this case is unfair, the cancellation of the disposition imposing the penalty tax of this case is ordered, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of reason.

Judges Han-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)