부가가치세부과처분 무효확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 12, 2001, the Plaintiff registered a business with the trade name of “Construction/Interior Type” as the type of business, but added the “gamb/trade and automobile trade” as the type of business on September 22, 2009.
B. On April 7, 2014, the head of the Seocheon District Tax Office Kim Jong-po Office was divided from the Seocheon Tax Office’s letter.
A. B conducted an investigation on the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009 on B, and discovered that the purchase tax invoice received by B, etc. was false. On August 1, 2010, the input tax amount was deducted for the said portion of the tax invoice, and the value-added tax indicated in No. 1 of the attached table was corrected and notified (hereinafter “first disposition”).
C. On December 3, 2012, the head of Seodaemun District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the result that the sales of B was omitted after conducting an individual consolidated investigation for the Plaintiff in 2009 and notified the Plaintiff of the result that the sales was omitted, and on December 3, 2012, the head of Seodaemun District Tax Office issued a correction and notification of the value-added tax stated in the [Attachment 2] notified tax amount (hereinafter
On March 7, 2013, when the Plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax after filing the final tax return for the second half-year value-added tax in 2012, the head of Seoincheon Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax stated in the attached Table 3 No. 43 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
The plaintiff was notified of the first disposition and requested a pre-assessment review on June 7, 2010, but on July 22, 2010, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office did not adopt a pre-assessment review request.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1-4, 9, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was deceiving D around June 2009 while operating the Integian Fisheries chain “B,” and lent business funds for used cars export business. The Plaintiff borrowed the name of business registration.
The plaintiff only lent the business registration name to D.