Note 4300 Ma300 Ma300

1. On July 24, 2008, the Defendant revoked the revocation of the comprehensive liquor wholesale business license on behalf of the Plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. 쇠은지 300 Cheong300

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, 14 and Eul evidence 1 and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in alcoholic beverage wholesale business after obtaining a comprehensive license from the Defendant.

B. From April 22, 2008 to May 21, 2008, the Defendant conducted an investigation of tracking the distribution process with respect to the Plaintiff. On July 24, 2008, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s comprehensive liquor wholesale business license on the ground that the ratio of disguised sales under Article 11-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to disguised sales amount under Article 11-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act constitutes the grounds for revocation of license under Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”).

C. Accordingly, on October 7, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for an island board seeking the revocation of the revocation of the instant disposition. However, on January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff was dismissed on January 23, 2009 during the instant lawsuit.

2. Whether the disposition of revocation of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Defendant’s principal

As a result of a supplementary investigation on the documents submitted by the plaintiff during the course of the lawsuit in this case, the defendant confirmed the fact of normal transactions and set the ratio of disguised sales to the false sales as a result of the original investigation on some transactions identified by disguised or fictitious transaction due to lack of data at the time of the original investigation. As a result, the period of February 1, 2007 and February 9.1, 2007 does not constitute the grounds for cancellation of the license for the second period of 2007, but the ratio of disguised or fictitious sales or the amount of tax invoices to be issued exceeds 10/100 of the total sales of alcoholic beverages, which is the basis for revocation of the alcoholic beverages license, as follows, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

(B) Plaintiff’s principal

Of KRW 335,759,00 which the Defendant recognized as a disguised transaction in January 2007, the part of KRW 21,376,00 for double-calculated 21,328,00 for double-calculated 21,328,00 for failure to report after the change of a business entity, ③ the transaction amount on deposit transaction records and KRW 83,456,00 for non-reported 21,328,00 for non-reported 83,434,00 for credit sales, ④ the amount of cash receipts by a business employee and KRW 128,908,00 for total amount of cash receipts by a business employee, 272,502,00 for false-processed sales or non-delivery of tax invoice. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disguised sales in January 200 are unlawful for the reason of revocation of the total amount of alcoholic beverages sales.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 15 (Suspension of Sales of Liquors, etc.)

Article 11-2 (Violation, etc. of Duty to Issue Tax Invoice)

C. Determination

(1) Part on the proposal for double calculation

According to the Eul evidence No. 12 (the review of the plaintiff's false sales or non-delivery details of the tax invoice presented by the defendant, and the defendant calculated the ratio of violation based on this data), it is clear that the sum of the following items is calculated as a false sales (the part of the sales of gallon among the details asserted by the plaintiff is not deemed double calculation).

Therefore, the amount should be deducted from the amount of disguised processing sales (and the total sales of alcoholic beverages).

(2) The part on the assertion for recognition of reported portion after the change of the business operator

원고는 ■■■(대표자 이☆☆)에 대한 공급가액 10,507,000원의 세금계산서(순번 102번)는 거래기간 도중 공급가액 10,811,027원의 주류 공급이 이루어져 장부상에는 종전 사업자등록번호로 기재하였다가(순번 146번), 공급받는 자가 사업자등록을 변경함에 따라 변경 후 사업자등록번호로 세금계산서를 발행하여 준 것이므로, 합계 금액 21,318,027원은 위장매출 및 세금계산서 미교부 금액에서 차감되어야 한다고 주장하나, 상호가 통일하다는 사정만으로는 통일한 사업체에 대한 계속적 거래금액에 관한 세금 계산서만을 사업자등록번호가 변경된 후에 발급하였을 뿐이라는 위 원고의 주장사실을 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없다. 원고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(3) The part asserted consistent with the deposit transaction records

According to Gap evidence Nos. 15-1 through 4, 6, and 13, the fact that the plaintiff received the money equivalent to the following amount from the person who received the tax invoice from around January 2007 after the plaintiff issued the tax invoice among the review details (Evidence No. 12) prepared the details of the plaintiff's false sales or the non-issuance of the tax invoice for the first period of January 2007 (Evidence No. 12) presented by the defendant shall be confirmed through the bank transaction verification. Thus, it is reasonable to view that there was a real transaction within the above amount, and therefore, 60,63,918 won should be excluded from the disguised processed sales (the five deposit details of evidence No. 15-5 of the evidence No. 15 should be excluded from the disguised processing sales (the defendant judged that there was a real transaction based on the evidence No. 12 and No. 12).

(4) The part concerning the claim of credit sales amount

원고는 원고의 2006년과 2007년도 재무제표(갑 제12호증의 1, 2) 기재에 의하면, 2006. 12. 말 현재 외상매출금이 857,502,470원이었다가 2007. 12. 말 현재 225,790,124원으로 줄어들었는바, 이는 원고가 2007년도에 상당한 액수의 외상으로 매출한 거래에 대한 대금을 수금하였다는 것을 의미하는바, 이와 같은 외상매출 수금분에 해당하는 춘향(순번 39번) 1,833,000원, 미아오(순번 60번) 10,589,000원, 희야(순번 67번) 1,900,000원, 첼로(순번 74번) 1,304,0000원, 에쿠스(순번 77번) 1,507,000원, 합 계 17,434,000원은 이미 2007년도 이전에 세금계산서를 발행하고 외상으로 주류를 판매하였다가 2007년도에 그 대금을 수금하였다 할 것이어서, 세금계산서 미교부 내역에서 제외되어야 한다는 취지로 주장하나, 2007년도 외상매출금이 감소하였다는 사정만으로 위 각 거래내역이 앞서 세금계산서를 발행한 바 있고 그에 대한 외상매출에 대응하는 수금액임을 인정할 수 있는 직접접인 증거가 되지는 않는다 할 것이고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(5) Sub-committee

As seen above, among the Plaintiff’s sales that the Defendant deemed to fall under disguised, processed or sales or non-delivery of the tax invoice, the amount of KRW 80,305,918 (=19,642,000 +60,663,918) of the total amount of transactions proved to have been engaged in real transactions corresponding thereto by the Plaintiff’s data submitted by the Plaintiff does not constitute “the case where the Plaintiff did not deliver or falsely deliver the tax invoice” under Article 11-2(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Thus, even if the materials presented by the Defendant are determined based on the materials presented by the Defendant, the amount of KRW 25,453,703 (35,759,621 won - 80,305,918 won) during the taxable period of value-added tax, which constitutes approximately 9.59% of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages in the taxable period [35,75,305,306,637,7836,601]

Therefore, even without further examining about KRW 128,908,00, the amount of cash receipts by the business employees asserted by the Plaintiff, it is apparent that the ratio of disguised sales under Article 11-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of 2007, which served as the basis for the disposition of revocation of the instant case, does not exceed 10/100 of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages under Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act. Thus, the instant disposition of revocation is unlawful on the premise that the amount of non-issuance of tax invoices by taxable period and false entry is not less than 10/100 of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages for the pertinent period.

3. 쇠물은지 300 Cheong300

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.