2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

가. 원고 : 서울 중구 ☆☆동 48-6 남대문시장에서 '@@@'라는 상호로 의류 도ㆍ소매 업 영위

b)The result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office's criminal findings;

(1) The investigation period: January 16, 2007 - April 19, 2007

(2) Details of detection

(가) @@세무회계사무소(원고를 비롯한 남대문 상가 약 1,223개 업체의 세무신고 및 기장 대리)의 실질적 운영자 양현중은 위 1,223개 업체에 대한 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 기장업체의 부가가치세 매출과세표준과 매입세액 및 납부세액을 일정하게 맞추기 위하여 실지거래 없이 상호합의하에 매출ㆍ매입세금계산서를 주고받는 교차거래를 하였음

(B) Issuance of tax invoices equivalent to KRW 219,849,00,000 in total of supply values by adjusting the sales tax base and input tax amount as above.

(c)report of value-added tax on plaintiffs;

(1) 205 - For the first period of 2006

The purchase tax amount of the total amount of KRW 138,620,000 on the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax invoice in this case”) issued by the two Free Trade Zone shall be deducted from the amount of the sales tax by taxable period

(2) A revised return on July 2, 2007 on the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2006

(a) Tax base for sales: No return nor change;

(B) Tax amount payable and additional tax amount due to the input tax deduction of 5,200,000 won

D. The defendant's corrective disposition (the disposition of this case on October 12, 2007, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

Value-added Tax Correction and Notice as stated in the claim, by deducting each purchase tax amount on the ground that the purchase tax invoice in this case is different from the other tax invoice;

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3-1, 2-2, 4-1, 2-2, 1, 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The purchase transaction on the purchase tax invoice in this case is a processing transaction as a comparison transaction between the sales tax invoice and the sales transaction in the corresponding taxable period.Therefore, it shall be deducted from the tax base at the time of below the supply price of the sales transaction corresponding to the purchase tax invoice in this case, and the minimum amount of the sales should be determined by the estimation method.

B. Determination

According to the provisions of Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, when the tax invoice under Article 16 is not issued, or when the whole or part of the entries required for the delivered tax invoice are not entered or the input tax amount is entered differently from the fact is not deducted from the output tax amount even if the goods or services were actually supplied, in the case of a sales declaration, it is reasonable to deem that the taxpayer was actually engaged in such sales as long as the taxpayer voluntarily filed a sales report. Even though there was no domestic sales, the portion reported by the taxpayer as the sales in the value-added tax, which is the tax method by which the tax return was filed, is finalized (if the sales tax amount is reported excessively, the taxpayer shall take the procedure of claiming a reduction or correction of the amount, etc.), and the portion reported as the sales shall not be deemed to have been deducted from the total sales under the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9917, Nov.

Since the tax base and amount of tax determined by the declaration cannot be contested in a lawsuit disputing a disposition of increase or decrease, so long as the Plaintiff had already reported sales from the first half to the first half of the year 2005 and became final and conclusive legally, even if the Plaintiff asserts that the sales declaration transaction should be deducted from the tax base as the processing transaction later in this case, it cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the assertion that the sales amount should be re-determined by the method of estimated investigation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed because there is no ground for appeal.