쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지은은은 3000 아은은은은은은은은 3000 아은은은은은은 3000 아은은아아은은은 3000 아은이 300202010 head 14824 Tax Imposition

Article 300 Cheongcho u300 u300 expiration u3000 expiration u3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu31351 decided June 22, 2010

쇠은은 개은은 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 아은은이 3000 개이 이 30030 개이 9 December 9, 000

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after the lapse of its submission period).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to Article 2 of the former Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 920 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), a public official engaged in taxation (hereinafter referred to as "tax official") may seize and search a suspected criminal suspect or a reference witness, and the search and seizure warrant issued pursuant to Article 3(1) of the same Act shall include the name, etc. of the suspected criminal suspect pursuant to Article 219 and Article 114(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 4 of the same Act and Article 107(1)1 and Article 95(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. However, if the name of the suspected criminal suspect is unclear, the same applies mutatis mutandis may indicate the suspected criminal suspect as an increase, physical size, or other matters identifying the suspected criminal suspect pursuant to Article 75(2) of the same Act. Meanwhile, the search and seizure warrant shall be presented to the person under Article 418 of the former Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that on January 25, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court issued GG (hereinafter referred to as "GG") to an open market (a cyber transaction place where goods are traded between multiple sellers and buyers through the Internet site services) and AAB branch market (hereinafter referred to as "AB branch market") and that on the search and seizure warrant executed by the National Tax Service (hereinafter referred to as "the search and seizure warrant of this case"), the suspect was registered as an individual seller (unregistered business operator) of GG and AB branch market and entered the name and poor that the goods are sold to buyers from 198 to the date, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the suspect stated in the search and seizure warrant of this case is an unspecified majority, and that the person who is subject to the disposition of search and seizure stipulated in Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act, who is the head office of the office of the plaintiff and the person responsible for the management of information as the head office of the office, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to search and seizure, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Articles 402 and 403 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that an appeal under Article 402 and Article 403 of the same Act is subject to the court's ruling, so that a judge of the district court who is not the court's ruling may not appeal against the ruling to issue a search and seizure warrant, and Article 416 of the same Act provides that an appeal against the ruling to issue a search and seizure warrant shall be filed by the presiding judge or a commissioned judge. Here, "a presiding judge or a commissioned judge" refers to only the presiding judge or a commissioned judge of the court as a member of the court of the lawsuit. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a judge of the district court who is an independent appellate court to issue or dismiss a search and seizure warrant at the request of an investigative agency constitutes "the ruling of the court" that becomes subject to appeal under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the judge of the district court on the request for a search and seizure warrant does not fall under "a judgment on detention, etc. of the presiding judge or a commissioned judge" (see, e.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases and are not appropriate to apply to this case.

C. Article 9-3 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (amended by Act No. 9752 of May 28, 2009), which provides for notification of the execution of search, seizure, and inspection, provides that Article 2 of the Addenda shall apply from the first enforcement of the above amended provision after the enforcement of the above Act. Thus, the above provision does not apply to the instant search, seizure, and inspection executed on January 26, 2006.

Since it is clear that the plaintiff's assertion related to this point should be rejected, even if the court below did not make an explicit decision, the decision does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The remaining arguments in the grounds of appeal are new allegations in the final appeal and cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who independently supplies goods or services for business purposes is the person liable for value-added tax, regardless of whether it exists for profit. Here, "person who independently supplies goods or services for business purposes" means a person who provides goods or services for continuous and repeated intent after meeting the business form to create a value-added (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu5754, Feb. 14, 1989; 2010Du8430, Sept. 9, 2010). "The first instance court recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence. According to the facts of recognition, the person who independently supplies goods or services for business purposes in the open market is only the seller such as the plaintiff, but is not the operator of the open market. Meanwhile, the issue of whether the business operator supplies goods or services does not affect the establishment of the liability to pay taxes, and the reason for the open market operator to freely join the open market as well as the operator of the open market without permission to sell such goods or services.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxable object of value-added tax or the taxpayer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Dan 300 Ma300 Ma3000 Mau300 Mau300 Man Mal300