The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

A. The plaintiff is a business operator who operates each entertainment establishment under the trade name of the business operator who operates each entertainment establishment (hereinafter referred to as "CC") in Yeonsu-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul, as the trade name of the "AAAAAA" (hereinafter referred to as "AAAB") and the "BB BB" (hereinafter referred to as "BB") at each 538-7, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "each 3 entertainment establishments of this case") and the "AAAAAA" and the "BB" at each 812, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon (hereinafter referred to as "CCCC").

B. From June 20, 2007 to November 14, 2007, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of Central Regional Tax Office, as a result of conducting an investigation of personal tax integration with the Plaintiff, notified the Defendants of the results that the Plaintiff processed the income (AAAA 3,327,851, 166, BBB 289, 531, 479, 531, 479, CC 176, 831, 457 won, and 457 won) accrued from each of the instant places of business for a period from September 2005 to June 30, 2007, as taxation data.

C. Accordingly, on December 5, 200, the head of the tax office of each of the defendant's 20-1 and 30-10 of the 2-year service charges for each of the above 30-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 5-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 2-year service charges of the 5-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 5-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 5-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 5-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 30-year service charges of the 30-year service charges of the 20-year service charges of the 5-year service charges of the 205-year service charges.

D. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an objection on March 12, 2008 on July 17, 2008.

On April 14, 2009, the Tax Tribunal filed a request for a trial with respect to the AAA and BB workplace, and the Tax Tribunal rejected the request on the ground that the request was unlawful on March 20, 2009 after the lapse of the deadline for request under Articles 6(6) and 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and the request for a trial with respect to theCC workplace was filed on March 20, 209, by re-auditing whether each of the relevant amounts treated as the service charges to be excluded from the base of value-added tax and special consumption tax, constitutes the service charges to be excluded from the supplier.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 30, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14 (including each natural disaster) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the main safety defense by the head of the defendant OOO tax office

A. Defendant OO director’s assertion

As to the Plaintiff’s filing of the claim for revocation of the instant 3 disposition regarding the place ofCC by the director of the tax office on the ground that the instant 3 disposition was unlawful, the director of the tax office set up a defense that the Plaintiff’s notification of the instant disposition was served on December 10, 2007 and filed an objection on March 12, 2008 after the lapse of 90 days from the notification of the instant disposition, that part of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff is unlawful as it did not go through legitimate procedure

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2. The entry in the relevant statutes (1) shall be as follows;

C. Determination

According to the provisions of Articles 55(1) and (2), 56(2), 61(1), and 66(6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts may not be instituted without going through a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act. The request for evaluation shall be filed within 90 days from the date (when a notice of disposition is received, the date on which the notice of disposition is received) on which the decision on the request for evaluation is known. When a request for examination is to be made after going through a formal objection, the objection shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the decision on the formal objection is notified (when a notice of disposition is received, the date on which the notice of disposition is received), the period for filing an objection shall be 90 days from the date on which the person who received the relevant disposition becomes aware of the fact that the relevant disposition was lawfully delivered, public notice or other methods, but if a person other person than the other person who received the notice of disposition becomes aware of the other person;

As to whether the Plaintiff’s objection has been filed after the lapse of the filing period pursuant to the above provision and the light thereof, it is examined as to whether the Plaintiff’s objection was filed. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 8-1 through 10, Defendant OOO chief of the tax office sent the notice of the instant disposition No. 3 to the Plaintiff by registered mail to the Plaintiff’s representative director at LLM-Gu NY 793YY 904 Dong 508, Dec. 10, 2007, which is presumed to have been presumed to have been the Plaintiff’s domicile, and it is not returned after the notice was delivered to EO, a security guard of the above apartment, but there is no evidence to recognize that this K has delegated the Plaintiff with the right to receive the registered mail. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the notice of the instant disposition No. 3 to the Plaintiff on Dec. 10, 2007.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the amount of service charges paid by the Plaintiff to the Corporation, the Corporation is not the employees employed by the Plaintiff, but the independent business operator who directly attracts and manages the Plaintiff’s own business with the service charges paid by the customer, and accordingly, the Plaintiff received the payment by separating the sales amount of alcoholic beverages and the service charges from the customer on credit card sales slip, etc., and paid the service charges paid by the customers to the Corporation. Thus, the amount of service charges paid to the Corporation should be excluded from the sales amount of each Plaintiff’s business place. However, each disposition of this case is unlawful by including each service charges paid by the Defendants to the Corporation in the sales amount of each Plaintiff’s business place and calculating the tax base of the Value-Added Tax and the Special Consumption Tax.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3. The entry in the relevant statutes (2) shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff is a business entity that runs each of the instant places of business in the instant place of business in the form of providing customers with entertainment and alcoholic beverages, attracting customers in each of the instant places of business, providing them with various convenience.

(2) In preparation for the failure to recover the credit sales at the time of the employment of each of the instant places of business, the Plaintiff received approximately KRW 3 million and KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has deducted the amount of the said deposit from the respective customers who were either paid or not paid to the Plaintiff.

(3) The databases of each of the instant places of business entrusted customers who found themselves with the duties of providing services, such as ice, strawing, loan procurement, acting driving, etc., with their own customers. Without finding any specific water, and with respect to the customers who found each of the instant places of business without finding any specific water, waters provided the above services by the sequences established by the order of priority.

(4) The Plaintiff issued a credit card sales slip with a distinction between main and service charges to customers who pay by credit card (if the credit card is a corporate card or sales amount is less than 100,000 won, a credit card sales slip with no service charge separate has been issued), and the ratio of salary feed to the sales amount of the credit card sales slip (total of main and salary feed) is not fixed (0%-49%).

(5) On the other hand, customers using each of the instant workplaces made a lump sum payment of service charges with credit cards, cash, etc. to them, and directly paid money in the name of “Woo” to the water who provided the above services to them.

(6) However, the Parties received 25% of the sales amount in the case of cash sales, and 15% of the sales amount in the case of credit card sales, without receiving a separate fixed wage from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, if the customers in charge of the Defendant are calculated in cash, the Parties deposited the remainder after deducting 25% of the said amount in the accounting office of each of the instant businesses (if payment is not made, it was deducted from the deposit paid by each of the Parties in advance), and in the case of credit card sales, the amount equivalent to 15% of the sales amount has been paid.

(7) Each service fee of the instant case is the amount that the Plaintiff did not report as the amount of income by treating it as a service fee for the water among the amount of income accrued from the business of each of the instant places of business, and the details are as stated in the "service fee" column for each of the instant places of business in attached Form 1.

(8) The Plaintiff submitted the Service Fee Payment Book (Evidence A) as evidence by asserting that the Plaintiff received the signature of the Party that received the Service Fee Book in direct payment to the relevant Party. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the details of the statement correspond to the amount of the Service Fee stated in the credit card sales slip, etc., and there is no other objective financial data, etc.

(9) The Plaintiff withheld the amount equivalent to each of the service charges of this case as the business income of the wazers belonging to each of the instant business places, and paid it to the competent tax office of each of the instant business places.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 8, 9, 11 through 29, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 7 and 11 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the tax base under Article 13 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all monetary value related to consideration received from a trader, regardless of the pretext thereof," and Article 48 (9) of the same Act provides that "the service charges of a paper-based worker (including free-based income earners) received together with the consideration for the provision of food and accommodation services or personal services shall not be included in the tax base if it is confirmed that the service charges are paid to an employee of the year, including the tax invoice, receipt, credit card sales slip under Article 32-2 of the Act." In addition, Article 13 (1) of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides that "the same shall not apply to cases where an entrepreneur appropriates the service charges to his income from him, but the amount of the service charges shall not be included in the receipt charges of the special consumption tax (including the amount before the amendment by Act No. 8829 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply).

According to the above provisions, if a business operator enters the service charges of employees in credit card sales slip, etc. separately from the consideration for the provision of his service, the service charges are not, in principle, included in the tax base for value-added tax and special consumption tax, and in this case, the "employee service charges" refers to the amount which the customer pays with the intention to directly belong to the employee who provided the service in question, as the consideration for intangible services, such as the speech, friendship, and consideration, which are provided by the business operator in connection with the provision of service, apart from the consideration for the reverse supply

Therefore, in cases where a business operator supplies food and accommodation services or personal services and enters the service charges received by employees in a credit card sales slip, etc. along with the consideration separately from the consideration, if it is confirmed that the service charges were paid to the relevant employee, the service charges should not be included in the tax base of value added tax and special consumption tax. However, the mere fact that the service charges are separately entered in credit card sales slip, etc. cannot be deemed as the service charges excluded from the tax base of value added tax and special consumption

(2) In light of such legal principles, we examine whether each of the instant service charges constitutes “service charges of employees” under Article 2(1)11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is excluded from the tax base of value-added tax and special consumption tax.

As seen earlier, credit card sales slip issued in each of the instant places of business contains separate service charges from the prime contractor. However, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to 15% of the sales revenue in the said table of credit card sales to its employees, including the prime contractor. Meanwhile, in light of the circumstances described in Paragraph (8) of the facts recognized, it is difficult to consider the Plaintiff’s payment of service charges as the basis for recognizing the fact that the service charges in this case were paid to its employees, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount equivalent to 15% of the sales revenue in credit card sales, i.e., e., the amount equivalent to 10% of the sales revenue in the instant place of business, 25% of the sales revenue in cash sales, 20% of the sales revenue in each of the instant places of business, and 30% of the sales revenue in each of the instant case is not included in the payment method of the service charges in the special consumption tax for each of the instant places of business under consideration that each of business did not belong to the above direct service charges.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants should be dismissed in its entirety on the ground that it is without merit. The plaintiff's amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the court is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.