Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on November 15, 2006 against the Plaintiffs exceeds KRW 246,685,627 of value-added tax for the second period of 2004, and exceeds KRW 338,972,80 of value-added tax for the first period of 2005, and the imposition of KRW 345,718,254 of value-added tax for the second period of 2005 and the imposition of KRW 990,63,636 of value-added tax for the second period of 2005 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 90% are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on November 15, 2006 to the Plaintiffs exceeds KRW 494,471,172 of value-added tax for the second period of 2004, and exceeds KRW 295,836,363 of value-added tax for the first period of 2005, and the imposition of KRW 415,281,209,209 of value-added tax for the second period of 2004, each disposition is revoked.

A. Status of the plaintiffs

On November 22, 2003, the Plaintiffs: (a) manufactured and sold an adult amusement machine (hereinafter “instant business”) under the trade name called “○○-4 Ground Building, Daejeon ○○-dong, Daejeon, ○○-dong,” and (b) reported the closure of business on December 28, 2005.

(b) Circumstances and details of the initial amount of tax imposed;

(1) The Plaintiffs did not report, at all, the value-added tax on the taxable period from February 2, 2004 to February 2, 2005 to the Defendant.

(2) As a result of the investigation of the tax offense against the plaintiffs, the defendant confirmed that there was an omission in sales in the business of this case during the above taxable period, and calculated the volume of manufactured goods first by converting the amount of KRW 3,341,279,400 paid to ○○, an entertainment assembly business entity, among KRW 34,292,670,546, which was deposited in five bank accounts of the plaintiffs, into KRW 320,000 per assembly unit price, and calculated the omission in sales by applying the unit price of sales for each entertainment.

(3) Accordingly, on November 15, 2006, the Defendant imposed and notified the value-added tax (excluding the principal tax excluding the additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the sales revenue as indicated in the attached Table 1’s first tax amount as of November 15, 2006.

(c) Reasons for the decision and the first correction of the objection;

(1) On February 9, 2007, the plaintiffs appealed against the above disposition and filed an objection against the defendant. The brief arguments are as shown in attached Table 3.

(2) On March 19, 2007, the Defendant accepted part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, and the actual requester for assembly of entertainment machines is ○○○ and ○○○. However, it was confirmed that the Plaintiffs paid money on behalf of them to ○○○○ on behalf of them, and it is confirmed that the amount of money discarded or stored in inventory without selling out of the entertainment machines manufactured by the Plaintiffs is accurate. In the event that the actual transaction price of the contents favorable to the Plaintiffs is confirmed on a monthly basis, the amount of money should be determined by applying the actual transaction price as well as the actual amount verified.

(3) As a result of re-audit, the Defendant: (a) reduced the amount of income per 50,000 won for the sales of used goods supplied to ○○○ residents; and (b) as the Plaintiffs requested the production of 1,70,000 won per 1, the amount of income; (c) reflects the 693 amount of income that the Plaintiffs returned to ○○ Trade and disposed of by ○○ Trade; and (d) recognize 80 items confirmed as new goods.

(4) Accordingly, on May 2, 2007, the Defendant issued a notice of reduction and correction of value-added tax as indicated in the column of “1” in attached Table 1 for the taxable period from January 2, 2004 to February 2, 2005.

(d) Circumstances for the examination, decision and second correction;

(1) On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs dissatisfied with the above objection, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on October 23, 2007, determined that the value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period was corrected by deducting 490 games, which were discarded at the assembly factory due to the amendment of laws and regulations in the first taxable period of 2005 and 500 games, which were assembled and sold during the second taxable period of 2005.

(2) On November 29, 2007, the Defendant added 50 returned 50 items which were replaced due to the difference in Finland size ex officio as a result of the above examination, and notified the reduction of value-added tax as indicated in the column of “the amount of secondary correction” in attached Table 1 for the taxable period 2005 (hereinafter “the disposition in this case”) (excluding the remaining parts of the value-added tax assessment for the period from January 2004 to February 2005, hereinafter “the disposition in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through 9, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 7 to Eul evidence 22 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) It is difficult to believe the content of the transaction statements and the business specifications of ○○ Electronic, which used the basic data that the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s amusement selling price, as well as the basic data that the Defendant used. Moreover, the Defendant recognized the actual sales price of October 2005 and December 2005 as KRW 3,000 and KRW 2,500,000, respectively, at the time of filing an objection, at the time of filing an objection, respectively, but without any grounds thereafter, the Defendant increased the sales price of KRW 3,150,000 and KRW 3,000,000, which is unjust.

(2) The Defendant divided the amount remitted to ○○○○○ into the unit price of assembly and deemed that the sales volume of the instant case was 8,618 (at the beginning of 10,431 units, but did not decrease as a result of filing an objection and filing a request for examination).

However, the following quantities among them should be deducted because they are not actually sold:

(A) The 2,450 entertainment machines replacing the case by Egypt: This part does not sell it as the goods of the Plaintiffs, but merely connects the entertainment room with the owner of the entertainment room through Egyptians through Egyptians. Thus, this part cannot be deemed as the sales transaction of the Plaintiffs.

(B) 450 entertainment machines (300 Spanish socials and 150 Gu type Nos. 150) directly discarded by ○○○○○○.

(C) The 1,167 entertainment equipment directly discarded by the Plaintiffs (10 entertainment equipment, 1,157 entertainment equipment, and part of the entertainment equipment sold by the Plaintiffs to entertainment rooms, which became no longer usable due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the relevant laws and regulations, the said entertainment equipment was replaced with a new entertainment machine, and the pertinent entertainment equipment was recovered and discarded.)

(3) As the newly developed entertainment machine 400 units (60 units of Spain, 140 units of NA, and 200 units of NAM) were supplied to the public relations store for the purpose of promotion, etc., the sales should be deducted by reflecting the amount of sales.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

C. Determination

(1) The legality of calculating the number of sales

(A) Generally, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition is a taxable person, but if it is proved that the facts of taxation requirements have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the other party cannot be deemed an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule.

(B) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of all the evidence mentioned above.

① The method of manufacturing and selling entertainment equipment by the Plaintiffs is as follows: cases are produced by the Plaintiffs’ order; monitors are purchased and supplied to the prefabricated, which is the right holder. In the event that the Plaintiffs purchased and delivered to ○○○○○○○ by purchasing gift certificates, which are the main components, the merchandise coupon emission machine, and the time of closure, etc., the right holder realization was assembled into the supplied parts and the parts purchased by himself, and delivered them to the entertainment machine purchase office (Buyer) ordered by the Plaintiffs, and when the entertainment machine is delivered to the purchasing office, the right holder completed the process of installing the computer and program last in the entertainment machine.

② Of the amount of KRW 34,393,670,546 deposited in five deposit accounts in the name of the Plaintiffs, KRW 3,341,279,40 was paid for the expenses of assembly to ○○○, an entertainment machine assembly business entity. The right ○○○ received KRW 320,000 from the Plaintiffs as the expenses of assembly per entertainment machine.

③ The kinds and details of amusement equipment produced by the Plaintiffs are as follows:

Model Name

Spanish Social Espanish (Spanish Social)

NAENUBE

(Guideo)

NAENUBE

(Semanio)

007BBE

The date of deliberation;

June 2, 2004

December 28, 2004

May 26, 2006

Characteristics

A product in which a user puts coin to a amusement machine after purchasing a coin;

If a user puts paper in a amusement machine, a product produced by a coiner and puts his coin into a amusement machine and carrying out a game.

If a user puts a paper, a product which enhances the convenience of the game by allowing co-owners to circulated inside the game machine without discharging co-owners out of it.

Not sold;

Product Sales Cost (Woo Electronic Business Specifications)

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,100,000

④ In the course of the investigation and taxation of the instant case, the Plaintiffs asserted that the amount remitted to ○○○○ was included in expenses unrelated to the sales of the instant game machine, such as children’s game machine purchase cost and A/S expense, but no evidentiary document was submitted. However, the right ○○ also was examined and there was no other finding that there was a remittance of other expenses unrelated to the sales of the instant game machine. In calculating the sales amount, in the case of entertainment machine cases, it was difficult to regard the entire amount supplied as sales because it was destroyed on the ground of a change in the model or defect in the product, as the case was destroyed on the ground of the alteration of the model or defect in the product. The computer was partially traded from November 2004, but it was difficult to compute the sales amount based on this, and there was no other circumstance where it was difficult for the customer to confirm the sales amount as to monitoring and other equipment.

(C) According to the above facts, the plaintiffs assembled the entertainment machine by entrusting it to ○○○, an assembly company, and sold the entertainment machine by allowing it to directly sell it to the purchaser at that place. At that time, the assembly cost per unit of entertainment has been determined as a certain amount. Thus, there is reasonable ground for calculating the total manufacturing quantity and sales volume based on the amount of assembly cost paid by the plaintiffs to ○○○○○, and no other method exists to objectively calculate the sales amount of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the defendant Daejeon District Tax Office’s appeal and examination stage, and deducted the sales amount by actively reflecting the part which objectively proves the plaintiffs’ assertion, and thus, it cannot be said that the method of calculating the sales amount based on the assembly cost in this case itself is unlawful.

(2) An error in calculating the selling price

(A) The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the above evidence, and the statement of Gap evidence 26 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

(1) The Plaintiffs traded in full as non-material without issuing a tax invoice or being issued a tax invoice to a customer of purchase or sale, and did not prepare all the books that form the basis for calculating the tax base and the tax rate in violation of relevant statutes.

② As a result of the investigation of the instant tax offense, when it is anticipated that the tax authority imposed enormous taxes, the Plaintiffs wish to submit to the tax authority the business specifications under the name of Park Young-young, the nominal owner of the instant business, and each transaction specifications necessary for calculating the number of sales necessary for calculating the amount of taxes, and wish to compute the tax base based on them. Unlike the allegations in the instant case, the Plaintiffs Park Jong-○, unlike the allegations in the instant case, explicitly acknowledged that the said business specifications were prepared by themselves, when conducting the investigation by the prosecution, he

③ On the other hand, the defendant applied 3,00,000 won per unit on the initial trading statement and applied 2,50,000 won per unit on December 2005, although the defendant applied 2,50,000 won per unit on December 3, 2005, on the ground that the sales price was 3,00,000 won per unit on the initial trading statement, since the defendant applied 2,50,000 won per unit on December 3, 2005, as a result of the last reinspection of the procedure for raising an objection, the sales of KRW 3,30,000 per unit on October 3, 200, and the average trading price was 300,500 won per unit on December 1, 2005, 300,50 won per unit on December 30, 2005, and 300,000 won per unit on December 30, 2005, respectively.

(B) All the circumstances revealed in the above facts and the plaintiffs pointed out the illegality of the sales unit price of this case, but the defendant does not present reasonable standards and grounds, other than a certain sales unit price, and the plaintiffs' genuine intent in this case seems to be aimed at reducing the sales unit price, rather than at reducing the sales unit price applied by the defendant, the sales unit price of this case recognized by the defendant is appropriate.

(3) Whether 2,450 parts of the amusement machine replacing the case are deducted

(A) As evidence consistent with the plaintiffs' assertion, there is evidence Nos. 27 with the statement of ○○○’s witness, and the testimony of ○○○ witness of the first instance trial, the main contents of which are as follows. In other words, from the owners of entertainment rooms using other entertainment equipment, the ○○ residents received the order that the ○○○○○ directly assemble with the plaintiffs’ introduction, and requested the plaintiffs to directly assemble the entertainment equipment. Nevertheless, the payment of assembly costs through the plaintiffs was limited to the request of the plaintiffs for the remittance of the unit price of assembly to a large amount of money needed to pay the unit price of assembly through the plaintiffs, and the new replacement is that the ○○○ itself without the involvement of the plaintiffs.

(B) However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① when undergoing an investigation at Daejeon Tax Office around May 207, 2007, ○○○ is ordered from the owners of the entertainment room to replace the above types of heavy entertainment equipment from the owners of the entertainment room with ○○ Electronic, and requested the Plaintiffs to assemble, and remitted the total amount of the expenses on or following the day or day of collection, and sought from the Plaintiff ○○ Office’s use of the entertainment machine. The Plaintiffs stated that ○○ separately received 5-60,000 won from the owners of the entertainment room’s business, and ② ○○○ remitted the total amount of expenses to the Plaintiffs for the above ○○○○○○ Office’s use of the transaction without any substantial interference with the Plaintiff’s right of sale, as it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs had no direct interest in the above sales of the products, including the above ○○ Office’s use of the profits and the sales of the products to which the Plaintiffs had no direct interest in the sales of the products.

(C) In full view of the aforementioned evidence and facts, it is reasonable to view that the above transaction was conducted by the Plaintiffs upon receiving the order from the ○○○ residents, and that the Plaintiffs sold the fixed entertainment equipment products of other companies by altering the case to Ssambabol, in accordance with logical and empirical rules. Therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

(4) Whether 450 recreation machines, which have been directly destroyed by ○○○○○○

(A) The statements by the relevant persons described in the evidence No. 11, No. 28, No. 16, and No. 17 are as follows.

① Han-hee, an engineer of an assembly factory on ○○ Freeboard: on December 1, 2004, to March 2005, 2005, 450 Shapbaba, was discarded, and Plaintiff Park Jong-hee placed 60,000 won per 1 unit at the cost of discarding it.

② On October 17, 2006, when the model has been changed, the case was replaced if the request for replacement was made at the existing entertainment machine purchasing place. The Ssam-type 300 to 400, and the product had been sold at the Gu type. The Ssam-type 150 to 160, the sum of 150 to 160, Saudi-type 150 to 450-560, is reversed. The cost of destruction was mostly borne by the ○○○○. However, the cost of destruction was 3 million won for the plaintiff Park Jong-soo-type cost, but the right ○○○ was only made at the request of the plaintiffs. Thus, the product was not returned from the customers, not the plaintiffs, because the right ○○ was not returned.

③ Along with ○○○○ System: Along with the fact that ○○○ System dismantling an existing product and replacing the cases, it is known that the number of 400 stories per unit was 40,000 new model. At the time, the Plaintiff refused to dispose of the waste at the time, without considering it.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, since there is no return of the right to the goods delivered to the customer, 490 parts of the goods which were delivered to the customer were eventually deducted from the number of goods sold in this case, and the replacement of the goods had already been made at the request of the plaintiffs, and the model alteration (it is necessary to change the model from time to time due to frequent change in the relevant regulations) has already been made at the request of the plaintiffs, but has not yet been delivered to the purchaser, it seems that the previous Rason's waste business operator has dismantled the products and replaced the new cases, and discarded them. However, as at the time of the review and decision of this case, the 490 parts of the goods delivered to the business Radds by demolishing the finished goods which could not be used due to the amendment of the laws and regulations among the finished goods in the ○○ assembly factory at the time of the review and decision of this case, the 490 parts of the goods which had already been removed from the number of goods sold in this case, and thus, the 4500 parts or 490 parts of the above evidence.

(3) The portion on the deduction of 1,167 entertainment machines directly discarded by the plaintiffs

(A) As evidence consistent with the plaintiffs' assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 12 through Gap evidence Nos. 24, Gap evidence Nos. 29 through Gap evidence Nos. 42, and Gap evidence Nos. 46 (including each number) are indicated respectively. According to this, the owners of entertainment rooms have been replaced with the plaintiffs in a case where find malfunction occurs in the amusement machine purchased from the plaintiffs, or where the existing amusement machine was not used due to the amendment of Acts and subordinate statutes and the development of a new amusement machine, and the existing amusement machine was replaced with a new one. The waste disposal business operators entrusted by ○○ Electronic employees came to collect 650 vehicles from ○○ Resource (OOOO), which is a waste disposal business entity, 40 vehicles from ○○ resource (OOOO) to 400 vehicles from ○○○○ (OOOOO) to 00○○ (OOOOOO) to 500○ (OOOOOOOOOO) to 2001 through Korea.

(B) The existing statements by waste disposal business operators and the plaintiffs mentioned in the evidence Nos. 18 to B No. 21 are as follows.

① ○○ Kim Jong-young: (a) discarded ○○ electronic amusement machine from the end of February 2006 to the end of July 2006; (b) discarded the ○○ electronic amusement machine, which was not harshly decomposed; but (c) most amusement machines were close to waste materials, such as those accompanied by entertainment machines.

(2) Han-hee: An advertisement was made with the Internet and intersection newspapers, etc. for the disposal of entertainment equipment by proxy.

The types of entertainment machines have been mixed with other products entertainment equipment as well as the NASB, and most of them have been old to the extent that they should be disposed of as a matter of course. The remaining parts after the destruction have been given to ○○ and ○○○.

③ Korea-U.S. : The entertainment machine, which was entered through the advertisement, is the same as it was discarded to 100 Saudi Arabia, but it was prepared as desired by the plaintiffs' side at their request.

④ The Plaintiffs (at the stage of filing an objection and a request for review: The return of old-type amusement equipment from the operators of the entertainment room to the warehouse was kept in the warehouse, and the said equipment was transferred to the waste disposal business entity for disposal.

(C) In full view of these circumstances, it is not clear that the proprietor of the entertainment room business, who was handled by the waste disposal business entity, would have abolished whether the plaintiffs would replace or not, or whether the entertainment equipment was not used due to the change of the species, and even if the sale rate was higher than that of the old type, it is not easy to easily obtain the above evidence that the entertainment equipment was used in the king without any consideration solely on the ground that the equipment was not used due to the change of the type or the change of the laws and regulations. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that each of the above evidence No. 12 through No. 24, evidence No. 29 through No. 42, and evidence No. 46 (including each number), and each of the above statements No. 46 (including each number) are stated in the evidence No. 12, No. 29 through No. 42, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

(4) Whether the price per advertising store was 1,670,000 won or not.

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the statements in evidence Nos. 25 and evidence Nos. 43 through 45 and the testimony of Kim Jong-soo at the first instance court, the Plaintiffs were to use the 000,000 won-type 60,000 won-type 60,000 won-type 60,000 won-type 60,000 won-type 60,000 won-type 6,000-type 8,000-type 6,000-type 6,000-type 6,000-type 8,000-type 6,000-type 6,000-type 6,000-type 6,000-type 8,000-type 6,000-type 6,000-type 8,000-type 6,00-type 6,000-type 8,000-type 7,00-type 7.

(B) According to the above facts, the sales amount of the plaintiffs shall be calculated on the basis of KRW 1,671,800 per unit of 1,670,00 for the total amount of 400 won for each entertainment period supplied for public relations stores. The sales amount of the plaintiffs shall be calculated on the basis of KRW 14,671,80 for 2,728,213,700 for 2,204 from the sales amount initially calculated by the defendant [ KRW 244,530 for 244,530 (1,914,530 for - 1,670 for - 1,670 for 3,802,90,000 for 3,802,900,000 for each year [2,00,000 for - 1,670,000 for - 1,200 for 301,200 for 200 for 2000 for ]

(5) Justifiable tax amount

Therefore, the sales and tax base amount (sales ±1.1) that form the basis of the computation of value-added tax for the period from February 2, 2004 to February 2, 2005 are as shown in attached Table 2. Since the pertinent year value-added tax to be paid by the plaintiffs is also the same as stated in attached Table 2, the part exceeding the above legitimate tax amount among the dispositions in this case is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with the conclusion, the part against the plaintiffs, which constitutes the order to revoke in the judgment of the court of first instance, which partially accepted the plaintiffs' appeal and revoked the part against the plaintiffs, which exceeds the above reasonable amount of tax, and the part which exceeds the above reasonable amount of tax among the dispositions of this case shall be revoked, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiffs

Daejeon District Court 207Guhap4942 (25 June 2008)

2. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant insurance director is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

2. The part of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 309,498,708, which was imposed against the plaintiffs on November 15, 2006 by the head of Gun/Gu ○○ Tax Office on November 15, 2006 (the written application for change of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim appears to be clerical error in June 2007) is revoked.

A. Status of the plaintiffs

On November 22, 2003, the plaintiffs manufactured and sold an adult amusement machine (hereinafter referred to as the "business in this case") under the trade name called "○○○○○-dong 91-4 from the building "○○-dong 91-4" in the name of the representative, and reported the closure of business on December 28, 2005.

(b) Circumstances and details of the initial amount of tax imposed;

(1) The Plaintiffs did not return or pay any value-added tax and general income tax for the taxable period from January 2004 to December 2005 to the Defendants.

(2) 피고들은 원고들에 대하여 조세범칙 조사를 한 결과, 위 과세기간 중 이 사건 사업에 관하여 매출누락분이 있음을 확인하고, 원고들의 5개 은행계좌에 입금된 금액 34,292,670,546원 중 오락기 조립업자인 ◆◆◆에게 지급한 조립비용 3,341,297,400원을 조립단가 1대 당 320,000원으로 환산하여 금액을 추계 산출하였다.

(3) Accordingly, on November 15, 2006, the director of the tax office of △△ District imposed and notified the value-added tax (excluding the principal tax excluding the additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the sales revenue of the above calculation from January 1, 2004 to December 2, 2005 as indicated in the attached Table 1 column. The director of the tax office of △△△ District on the same day imposed and notified the tax amount for 2004 and the global income tax for 2005 (excluding the additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) as indicated in the attached Table 1 column (hereinafter the disposition of imposition of global income tax of this case).

(c) Reasons for the decision and the first correction of the objection;

(1) The plaintiffs dissatisfied with the above disposition on February 9, 2007, and filed an objection with the head of the defendant △△ District Tax Office. The brief arguments are as shown in the attached Table 2.

(2) 피고 □□세무서장은 2007.3.19. 원고들의 주장 중 일부를 받아들여, 실제 오락기 조립 의뢰자는 ■■■과 △△△인데 다만 원고들이 이들을 대리하여 ◆◆◆에게 조립비용을 대리 송금한 것에 불과한 것인지 확인하고, 원고들이 제조한 오락기 중 판매하지 않은 채 폐기하거나 재고로 남아 있는 수량이 정확히 얼마인지를 제조사하며, 월별로 원고들에게 유리한 내용의 실지거래가액이 확인되는 경우 그 거래가액이 확인된 실제 수량뿐만 아니라 당해 월의 환산 제조수량 전체에 대하여 그 실지거래가액을 적용하여 수입금액을 재산정하기로 결정하였다.

(3) 이에 따라 재조사를 시행한 결과, 피고 □□세무서장은 ① ■■■에게 공급한 중고제품 판매분 2,450대에 대하여는 1대장 50만 원으로 수입금액을 감액하고, ② △△△가 개발한 크리스탈 게임기를 원고들이 1대당 170만 원씩 제작 의뢰한 사실이 확인되므로 그 액수로 수입금액을 감액하며, ③ 원고들이 반품 받아 ▽▽무역을 시켜 폐기한 693대를 반영하고, ④ 신제품으로 확인된 80대를 재고로 인정하기로 하였다.

(4) Accordingly, from May 2, 2007 to February 2, 2005, the head of the Defendant △△ District Tax Office issued the notice of reduction and correction of the value-added tax as shown in the column for the first correction tax amount in attached Table 1 for the taxable period from February 2, 2004 to February 2, 2005. After that, the Defendant △△△ District Tax Office also issued the notice of reduction and correction of the comprehensive income tax as described in the column for the first correction tax amount in attached Table 1 on June

(d) Circumstances for the examination, decision and second correction;

(1) On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs dissatisfied with the above objection, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided to correct the value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period, which is to be deducted from the sales amount of each of the above taxable periods, as the game machine which was discarded at the assembly factory due to the amendment of laws and regulations in the first taxable period of October 23, 2007 and the sales after assembling and processing in the second taxable period of 2005.

(2) On November 29, 2007, in addition to the disposal volume of 50 returned due to the difference in Finland ex officio as a result of the above examination, the head of the Silgu Tax Office issued a notice of reduction or exemption of value-added tax for the taxable period of 2005 as indicated in the attached Table 12, as stated in the attached Table 12. Accordingly, the head of the Silgu Tax Office also issued a notice of reduction or correction of the comprehensive income tax as stated in the attached Table 12, as well as the attached Table 4, December 2007.

E. The Plaintiffs did not separately request an examination or a judgment regarding the instant disposition imposing global income tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 evidence, Eul 1 through 22 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit by the plaintiffs against the defendant Do governor-general was legitimate (the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax in this case)

A. We examine ex officio. In order to institute an administrative litigation, a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under the Framework Act on National Taxes should be made (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, the Plaintiffs did not undergo the aforementioned procedures in the preceding trial as to the imposition of global income tax of this case. Although the Plaintiffs underwent the procedures for requesting an examination regarding the imposition of global income tax of this case, the imposition of value-added tax and the imposition of global income tax of this case cannot affect an objection and the imposition of global income tax only subject to the imposition of value-added tax, as separate dispositions that are separate from each other, and this does not constitute a case where there is no need to undergo the pre-trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2837, May

B. Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition of global income tax against the Defendant Do○ Tax Office is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Matri Tax Office (the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the value-added tax)

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) In addition, the above Defendant recognized the actual selling price of 3,00,000 won and 2,50,000 won respectively at the time of filing an objection, respectively, at the time of raising an objection, as the basic data that the Defendant recognized the selling price of the Plaintiff’s entertainment and the business specifications of ○○ Electronic, which were used as the basic data that recognized the Plaintiff’s entertainment sales price, as the source of which is unclear. Furthermore, the above Defendant recognized the actual selling price of 3,150,000 won and 3,000,000 won without any grounds, which is unjust.

(2) 위 피고는 ◆◆◆에게 송금한 금액을 조립단가로 나누어 이 사건 판매 수량을 8,618대(당초 10,431대였으나 이의신청과 심사청구를 거치면서 줄어들었다)로 보았으나, 그 중 아래의 수량은 실제로 판매하지 않은 부분이므로 공제하여야 한다.

(가) ■■■이 케이스를 교체한 오락기 2,450대 부분 : 이 부분은 원고들의 상품으로 판매한 것이 아니라, 단지 ■■■을 통하여 오락실 업주들과 ◆◆◆ 사이를 연결시켜 준 것에 불과하므로, 이는 원고들의 매출거래로 볼 수 없다.

(나) ◆◆◆이 직접 폐기한 오락기 450대(법규 개정 등으로 출고가 불가능하게 된 스페셜 300대와 구형 네오 150대)

(C) The 1,167 entertainment equipment directly discarded by the Plaintiffs (10 entertainment equipment, 1,157 entertainment equipment, and part of the entertainment equipment sold by the Plaintiffs to entertainment rooms, which became no longer usable due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the relevant laws and regulations, the said entertainment equipment was replaced with a new entertainment machine, and the pertinent entertainment equipment was recovered and discarded.)

(3) Since 400 newly developed entertainment machines by the Plaintiffs (60 Spain social, 140 NAM, and 200 NAM) were supplied to public relations stores for the purpose of promotion of sales promotion, etc., the sales should be deducted by reflecting the amount of sales.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The legality of calculating the number of sales

(A) Generally, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition is a taxable person, but if it is proved that the facts of taxation requirements have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the other party cannot be deemed an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule.

(B) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of all the evidence mentioned above.

① 원고들이 오락기를 제조∙판매하는 방식은, 원고들의 주문에 의하여, 케이스는 ◎◎◎가 제작하고, 모니터는 ▲▲▲이 구입하여 조립업자인 ◆◆◆에게 납품하며, 주요부품인 상품권 배출기, 지폐인식기 등은 원고들이 구입하여 ◆◆◆에게 전달하면, ◆◆◆은 위와 같이 납품받은 부품과 자체적으로 구입한 부품으로 오락기를 조립한 후 원고들이 지시한 오락기 구입처(매수인)에 배송하고, 오락기가 구입처에 배송되면 ▼▼▼이 그 오락기에 최종적으로 컴퓨터 및 프로그램을 설치하는 과정을 거쳐 이루어졌다.

② 원고들 명의의 5개 예금계좌에 입금된 금액 34,292,670,546원 중 3,341,279,400원이 오락기 조립업자인 ◆◆◆에게 조립비용 명목으로 지급되었다. ◆◆◆은 원고들로부터 오락기 1대 당 조립비용으로 320,000원씩 받았다.

③ The kinds and details of amusement equipment produced by the Plaintiffs are as follows:

Model Name

Spanish Social Espanish (Spanish Social)

Spanishe Spanish (Gueuko)

Sovereign (Semanite)

007BBE

The date of deliberation;

2. 204

December 28, 2004

oly 2, 2005

May 26, 2006

Characteristics

Products in which users put coins to amusement machines after purchasing coins; and

If a user puts paper in a amusement machine, a product produced by a coiner and puts his coin into a amusement machine and carrying out a game.

If a user puts a paper, a product which enhances the convenience of the game by allowing co-owners to circulated inside the game machine without discharging co-owners out of it.

Not sold;

A product seller (○○ Electronic Business Specifications)

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,100,000

④ 이 사건 조사 및 과세 과정에서 원고들은 ◆◆◆에게 송금한 금액 중 어린이용 게임기 구입비용, A/S비용 등 이 사건 게임기의 매출과 관련이 없는 다른 비용이 포함되어 있다고 주장하였으나, 이에 관한 아무런 중빙자료도 제출하지 못하였고, ◆◆◆도 역시 이에 관하여 조사받으면서 이 사건 게임기의 매출과 관련이 없는 다른 비용을 송금 받은 것이 있다고 인정한 적이 없다. 당초 이 사건 매출 물량을 산정할 때, 오락기 케이스의 경우 모델 변경 또는 제품의 하자 발생을 이유로 폐기되기도 하였기 때문에 그 납품된 전량을 매출로 보기 어려웠고, 컴퓨터는 2004.11.경부터 일부 거래되었으나 소요량 전체의 내역이 확인되지 않아 이를 기초로 매출 수량을 산정하기도 어려웠으며, 그밖에 모니터 등 기타 장비에 관하여는 거래처 확인 자체가 어려운 상황이었다.

(다) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고들은 조립업자인 ◆◆◆에게 의뢰하여 오락기를 조립시킨 후 이를 그곳에서 직접 구입업자에게 배송하게 하는 방식으로 오락기를 판매하였고, 그 때 오락기 1대 당 조립비용은 일정한 금액으로 확정되어 있었으므로, 원고들이 ◆◆◆에게 지급한 조립비용의 액수를 기준으로 전체 제조수량 및 판매물량을 산출한 것은 합리적 근거가 있고, 달리 더 객관적으로 원고들의 매출액을 계산할 수 있는 다른 방법이 있었다고 보이지도 않는다. 더구나 피고 □□세무서장은 이의신청 및 심사청구 단계를 거치면서 원고들의 주장 중 객관적으로 증빙할 수 있는 부분은 적극적으로 반영하여 판매대수를 차감하였으므로, 이 사건에서 조립비용을 기준으로 판매대수를 산정하는 방법 자체는 위법하다고 할 수 없다.

(2) An error in calculating the selling price

(A) The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the above evidence, and the statement of Gap evidence 26 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

1. The Plaintiffs were entirely traded as non-data without issuing a tax invoice to the purchaser or the seller or without being delivered a tax invoice from them, and they did not prepare any books that form the basis for calculating the tax base and the tax rate in violation of the relevant statutes.

② As a result of the investigation of the instant tax offense, when it is anticipated that the tax authority imposed enormous taxes, the Plaintiffs wish to submit the business specifications and each transaction list in the name of the registered owner of the instant business in order to calculate the number of sales necessary for calculating the amount of taxes, and to compute the tax base based on them. Unlike the allegations in the instant case, the Plaintiffs △△△△, unlike the allegations in the instant case, explicitly acknowledged that the said business specifications were prepared by themselves when conducting the investigation by the prosecution.

③ On the other hand, the above defendant applied the sales unit price of KRW 3,500,000 per unit on the initial trading statement for the same reason, although it applied the sales unit price of KRW 2,50,000 per unit on December 2005, on the ground that the above defendant applied the sales unit price of KRW 3,300,000 per unit on the initial trading statement, since it applied the sales unit price of KRW 300,000 per unit on October 1, 2005, as a result of the last reinspection in the procedure of raising an objection, the sales unit price of KRW 3,300,000 per unit on October 1, 2005 to the sales unit price of KRW 300,50 per unit on December 1, 2005, and the sales unit price of KRW 300,000 per unit on December 30, 200, as a result of the last reinspection in the procedure of raising an objection.

(B) All the circumstances revealed in the above facts and the plaintiffs pointed out the illegality of the sales unit price of this case, but did not present reasonable standards and grounds other than the sales unit price recognized by the above defendant in light of the fact that the plaintiffs' genuine intent in this case is not an issue of the sales unit price applied by the above defendant, but an attempt to reduce the sales volume in addition to the sales unit price recognized by the above defendant is reasonable.

(3) ■■■이 케이스를 교체한 오락기 2,450대 부분 공제 여부

(가) 원고들 주장에 부합하는 증거로는 ■■■의 진술이 기재된 갑 27호증의 기재와 증인 ■■■의 법정 증언이 있고, 그 주된 내용은 다음과 같다. 즉 ■■■은 타사 오락기를 사용하는 오락실 업주들로부터 그 중고 오락기를 원고들의 올쌈바 오락기 케이스로 교체해달라는 주문을 받고, 원고들의 소개로 ◆◆◆에게 직접 조립을 의뢰하였으며, 그럼에도 불구하고 원고들을 통하여 조립비용을 지급한 것은 원고들을 통해 조립단가를 싸게 할 요량으로 대신 송금하도록 부탁한 것에 불과하고, 새로 교체하는 올쌈바 오락기 케이스는 원고들의 관여 없이 ◆◆◆이 스스로 어디에서 구해왔다는 것이다.

(나) 그러나 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① ■■■은 당초 2007.5. 경 □□세무서에서 조사받을 때, 오락실 업주들로부터 다른 종류의 중고 오락기를 ○○전자의 올쌈바 오락기 케이스로 교체해 달라는 주문을 받고, 원고들에게 그 조립을 의뢰하면서 비용 전액을 수금 당일 또는 다음날 송금하였으며, 오락기 케이스도 원고 ☆☆☆에게 전화하여 구하였고, 자신은 별도로 오락실 업주들로부터 설치 수수료 5~6만 원을 따로 받았다고 진술한 점, ② ■■■은 당시 ◆◆◆에게 지급할 조립비용 뿐만 아니라 ◎◎◎에게 지급할 케이스 비용까지 전액 원고들에게 송금하였고, 원고들이 이를 다시 ◆◆◆과 ◎◎◎에게 송금한 점, ③ 올쌈바 오락기는 원고들이 개발한 고유의 오락기 상표로서 원고들에게 독점적인 제조 판매원이 있으므로, 단순히 조립업자에 불과한 ◆◆◆이 원고들의 관여 없이 독자적인 권한과 책임 하에 다른 회사의 중고제품을 함부로 올쌈바 오락기로 변경하여 판매하였다고 보기는 무리가 있는 점 , ④ 원고들이 혹시 위와 같은 중고 오락기 교체를 통하여 직접 얻은 금전적 이익이 없다고 하더라도, 부가가치세는 소득세 및 법인세와달리 실질적인 소득이 아닌 형식적인 거래의 외형에 대하여 부과되는 거래세로서 사업자의 이익이나 손실 여부와 전혀 무관하게 부과되는 것이므로, 위 거래를 부가가치세 과세 대상인 상품의 공급으로 파악하는데 아무런 장애가 없는 점, ⑤ 원고들은 위 거래를 통하여 오락기 시장의 점유율을 높임으로써 제품의 홍보효과 및 이미지 향상을 비롯한 간접적인 이익을 얻을 수 있으므로, 충분히 거래를 할 이유가 있다고 보이는 점 등의 모든 사정을 종합할 때, 위 갑 27호증의 기재와 증인 ■■■의 증언은 믿기 어렵다.

(다) 오히려 앞서 든 모든 증거와 사실관계를 종합하면, 위 거래는 원고들이 ■■■의 주문을 받고 다른 회사의 증고 오락기 제품을 원고들의 올쌈바 오락기로 케이스를 개조하여 판매하였다고 보는 것이 논리와 경험칙에 부합하므로, 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(4) ◆◆◆이 직접 폐기한 오락기 450대의 공제 여부

(A) The statements by the relevant persons described in the Evidence A 11, 28, 16, and 17 are as follows.

① ◆◆◆의 조립공장 기사 ★★★ : ◆◆◆과 함께 2004.12.~2005.3.까지 올쌈바 오락기 450대를 폐기하였고, 원고 ☆☆☆은 ◆◆◆에게 그 폐기비용으로 1대당 60,000원을 주었다.

② ◆◆◆ (2006.10.17. □□세무서에서 조사를 받을 때) : 모델이 변경된 경우 기존의 오락기 구입처에서 케이스 교체를 요구하면 케이스를 교체해 주었고, 케이스가 불량이거나 제품이 구형이라 '판매가 안 된'쌈바 기종 300~400대, 올쌈바 기종 150~160대 합계 450~560대 가량을 파기하였다. 파기 비용은 대부분 ◆◆◆이 부담하였고, 다만 원고 ☆☆☆이 회식비용으로 300만원을 준 적이 있으며, ◆◆◆은 원고들의 의뢰를 받고 기계를 제작만 하는 것이기 때문에, 원고들이 아닌 ◆◆◆이 고객들로부터 제품을 반품 받은 적은 없다.

③ ◎◎◎ : ◆◆◆이 기존 제품을 해체하고 케이스를 바꾸어 새로운 모델로 400대 정도 업그레이드 해 준 것을 알고 있다. 당시 케이스를 폐기하면 1대당 1만 원의 쓰레기 처리비용이 드는데, 원고들이 그것을 감안해 주지 않아서 더 이상 하지 않고 거절하였다는 말을 들었다.

(나) 위 각 증거를 종합하면, 이미 고객에게 인도된 제품을 ◆◆◆이 반품 받은 적은 없기 때문에. 결국 ◆◆◆이 케이스를 교체하여 새로운 모델로 업그레이드 시켰다는 물건들은, 원고들로부터 의뢰를 받아 이미 조립을 마쳤으나 아직 구매처로 배송되지 않고 있는 상태에서 모델 변경(관련 규정의 잦은 변경으로 수시로 모델이 변경됨)이 필요한 경우, 다시 그 제품을 해체하고 새롭게 케이스를 바꾼 후, 종전의 케이스는 폐기물 업자를 시켜 폐기한 것으로 보인다. 그런데 이 사건 심사결정 당시 ◆◆◆의 조립공장에 있던 완성품 오락기 중 법규 개정으로 인하여 사용할 수 없게 된 것들을 해체하여 업그레이드를 시킨 물량 490대는 이미 이 사건 판매대수에서 공제하였고, 그때 교체된 케이스는 당연히 폐기되었을 것이므로, ◆◆◆이 파기하였다는 450~대560대는 이 사건 심사결정에서 공제한 위 490대에 포함된 것으로 보아야 하고, 달리 ◆◆◆이 위 490대 외에 별도의 450대를 추가로 폐기하였다고 인정할 만한 다른 구체적인 사정이나 이를 뒷받침하는 증거도 없다.

(3) The portion on the deduction of 1,167 entertainment machines directly discarded by the plaintiffs

(가) 원고들의 주장에 부합하는 증거로는 갑 12 내지 24, 29 내지 42, 46호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재가 있고, 이에 의하면 오락실 업주들은 원고들로부터 매수한 오락기에서 핀보드 불량이 발생하거나 또는 법령의 개정 및 새로운 오락기의 개발로 기존의 오락기를 못 쓰게 된 경우 원고들에게 연락하여 새로운 것으로 교체 받았고, 기존의 오락기는 ○○전자 직원들의 의뢰를 받은 폐기물처리업자들이 오락실에 와서 수거해 갔는데, 구체적으로 보면 폐기물 처리업체인 ♤♤자원(♠♠♠)에서 650대, ♡♡자원(♥♥♥)에서 400대, ▽▽무역(♧♧♧)에서 850대, ♣♣♣(⊙⊙⊙)에서 500대, ◈◈◈◈◈(▣▣▣)에서 200대, ◐◐◐가 176대를 각 처리하였다는 것이다.

(B) The existing statements made by waste disposal business entities and the plaintiffs, as shown in the statements in the evidence Nos. 18 to 21, are as follows.

① ♠♠♠ : 2006.2. 말경부터 2006.7. 말경까지 ○○전자 오락기를 폐기하였는데 간혹 분해되지 않은 오락기도 있었지만 대부분의 오락기는 오락기 케이스가 부수어져 있는 등 거의 폐품에 가까운 상태였다.

② ♥♥♥ : 인터넷과 ○○○ 신문 등에 오락기 폐기 처리 대행을 광고하였다. 오락기 판매 딜러들과 단속 업주들이 오락기를 가져오면 이를 폐기하였다. 취급한 오락기의 종류는 원고들의 네오올쌈바뿐만 아니라 다른 여러 제품의 오락기들이 섞여서 있었고, 그 대부분은 당연히 폐기해야 할 정도로 낡은 것들이었다. 폐기하고 남은 부품은 ▣▣▣, ◐◐◐에게 주어 처리하게 하였다.

③ ⊙⊙⊙ : 광고를 통해 들어 온 네오올쌈바 오락기를 100대 정도 폐기한 것 같지만, 원고들 측의 요구에 따라 처리대수를 원하는 대로 작성해 주었다.

④ The Plaintiffs (at the stage of filing an objection and a request for review: The return of old-type amusement equipment from the operators of the entertainment room to the warehouse and the custody of the equipment in the warehouse was transferred to the waste disposal business entity for disposal.

(C) In full view of all these circumstances, since it is not easy for waste disposal business operators to make it easy for the operators of the entertainment room to dispose of whether the plaintiffs would replace or not, or whether the entertainment equipment was not used due to the change of the type, and even if the sales rate is higher than that of the old type, the mere fact that the entertainment equipment was used as a new entertainment machine due to the change of the type or the change of the laws and regulations was not used, it is not easy to obtain the above Gap 12 through 24, 29 through 42, and 46 (including each number). Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs' above assertion is not reasonable.

(4) Whether the price supplied for a promotion store is KRW 1,670,000 per unit

(가) 원고들 주장에 부합하는 증거는 갑 44 내지 45호증, 증인 ◑◑◑의 증언이 있고, 그 주된 내용은 다음과 같다.

① ◑◑◑ : ○○ ○구 ○○동 ○○○ 지상 1층에서 ※※오락실을 운영하고 있었다. 원고들의 제안에 따라 위 오락실을 원고들 제품의 홍보 또는 테스트 매장으로 운영하면서 2004.6.경 스페셜 60대, 2004.12.경 구형 네오 60대, 2005.6.경 신형 네오 60대를 대당 1,670,000원씩 공급받았다.

② ◁◁◁과 ◀◀◀도 위와 같은 홍보 매장을 운영하면서 원고들로부터, ◁◁◁은 구형네오 80대, 신형 네오 80대를, ◀◀◀는 신형네오 60대를 각 대당 1,670,000원씩 공급받았다.

(나) 그러나 위 각 증거는 다음과 같은 점에 비추어 믿기 어렵다. ① 우선 모든 거래가 전부 무자료로 이루어졌음에도 불구하고, 유독 홍보 매장 할인 판매에 관하여만 거래 대수와 종류, 가격까지 지나칠 정도로 정확하게 기억하는 것이 이상하다. ② 원고들은 이의신청과 심사청구를 거치는 과정에서 유리한 모든 사정을 거듭 주장하였으나, 이상하게 위 홍보 매장 할인판매에 관하여는 한 번도 언급한 적이 없다.③ 원고들이 홍보 매장에 할인판매 하였다고 주장하는 스페셜, 구형네오, 신형네오는 판매 가격이 같은 것이 아니라, 종류별로 원가와 판매가격에서 크게 차이가 나는데도 이를 무시하고 종류에 상관없이 일률적으로 1,670,000원에 판매하였다는 것은 상식적으로 납득하기 어렵다. ④ 원고 ☆☆☆은 이미 검찰에서 조사 받을 때, 2004.6.경 스페셜 오락기의 심의를 거친 후 ◑◑◑의 매장에서 4개월 동안 시범 매장을 운영하였고, 거기에 오락기를 시가보다 조금 싸게 제공하였다고 진술하였으나, ▷▷▷과 ◀◀◀의 홍보매장에 대하여는 전혀 언급이 없었다. ⑤ ◀◀◀는 원고들의 친동생이고, ◁◁◁은 원고들 동생의 친구이며, ◑◑◑ 역시 오랫동안 알고 지낸 지인이다. ⑥ 원고들이 주장하는 홍보매장 중 특히 ◑◑◑의 ※※오락실은 이 법원 200X고단472X호 형사사건에서 원고 ▶▶▶이 실제 업주로 운영하였다는 오락실과 위치와 이름이 동일하므로, 이는 원고들이 ◑◑◑ 명의로 같은 오락실을 운영하는 것이 아닌가하는 의심이 든다. ⑦ 핀보드 불량으로 오락기를 교체 받았다는 내용의 확인서를 작성해 준 ▤▤▤(갑 12호증의 9)역시 ◑◑◑와 같은 위치인 ○○ ○구 ○○동 ○○○번지 1층에서 오락실을 운영한다는 것이므로, 둘의 관계가 어찌된 것인지 석연치 않다.

(C) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant Dou Tax Office is dismissed as illegal, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Dou Tax Office is dismissed as there is no ground.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

【Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the "paid tax amount") shall be the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the "purchase tax amount") on the goods or services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the "sales tax amount"): < Amended by Act No. 5031, Dec. 29, 1

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount: < Amended by Act No. 5500, Dec. 31, 1983; Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 6048, Dec. 28, 1998>

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoices by customer is not submitted under the provisions of Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the whole registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties from among the listings of the submitted list of the total tax invoices by customer, which is entered differently from the fact: Provided,

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a "necessary entry item") is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 701, Dec. 30, 2003>

(1) The head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office having jurisdiction over the place of business, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of tax to be paid, by the investigation, only where a business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs: < Amended by Act No. 545, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5457, Dec. 31, 2007>

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where the value-added tax is likely to be evaded due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service determines or revises the tax base and amount of tax payable or amount of tax refundable for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall do so on the basis of tax invoices, books,

1. Where tax invoices, books, and other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base do not exist or important parts are incomplete;

2. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other evidence are obviously false in light of the scale of facilities, the number of employees, and the market prices of raw materials, commodities, products, or various charges;

3. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the quantity of raw materials used, power used, and other operational conditions.

(3) Where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service finds any error or omission in the tax base, tax amount paid or refundable, which is determined or corrected pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), he shall immediately correct it again

Table 1

(unit, source)

Items of Taxation

A disposition authority

Date of Imposition

Taxation Period

Original Amount of Tax

The primary corrected tax amount;

2. The secondary corrected tax amount;

Value-added Tax

November 15, 2006

For the first term, 2004

26,387,160

-

-

For the second term, 2004

378,014,250

248,019,427

-

For the first term, 2005

758,813,310

478,445,454

345,718,254

For the second term, 2005

2,413,348,919

1,079,390,909

1,011,209,090

Global Income Tax

November 15, 2006

204

28,205,006

24,974,361

-

205

566,858,878

357,315,054

309,498,708

Table 2

The plaintiffs' assertion

Decision on Objection

Results of reinvestigation pursuant to the decision of objection

Review and Decision

◆◆◆에게 지급한 조립비용 중 소모품의 여유 신청분, 어린이 기계 구입비용, A/S부품비용, 폐기처분 추가비용 등 비조립비용이 포함되어 있으므로 입금액에서 차감해야 함

Dismissal

-

Dismissal

On December 31, 2004, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism announced amendments to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism on December 31, 2004, and the owners of entertainment rooms who had purchased existing entertainment equipment and operated their business shall be deducted from the number of sales in accordance with the ombudsman's request for the return and replacement of the entertainment rooms from May 2005 to June 2005.

Dismissal

◆◆◆의 조립공장에 완성품으로 남아 있던 오락기를 법규개정으로 다시 해체하여 업그레이드 시킨 것 인정

■■■이 타사 중고오락기의 일부부품을 분리하여 재사용하고 빈케이스에 개정 법규에 적합한 올쌈바 오락기로 재조립한 2,450대에 대하여는 ■■■을 대리해서 ◆◆◆에게 조립비용을 송금하였을 뿐이므로 조립비용에서 차감해야 함

Determination of reinvestigation

Determination of property reduced by applying 500,000 won per unit of income;

Dismissal

△△△가 개발한 크리스탈 오락기를 ◆◆◆에게 조립하도록 소개시켜주고 ◆◆◆에게 대리송금한 160,000,000원은 조립비용에서 차감해야 함(500대)

Determination of reinvestigation

The determination of property amount by applying 1.7 million won per unit of revenue.

It is not recognized as sale by the plaintiffs

2004.12.31. 문화관광부 고시 개정에 따라 ◆◆◆이 조립은 하였으나 판매하지 못하고 직접 폐기한 450대는 판매대수에서 차감해야 함

Determination of reinvestigation

Dismissal

Dismissal

The plaintiffs' assertion

Decision on Objection

Results of reinvestigation pursuant to the decision of objection

Review and Decision

It is necessary to deduct the total amount of 2,776 times from the total number of sales of the amusement equipment which is discarded by being kept in the warehouse because it does not conform to the laws and regulations and the entertainment equipment (743) that is replaced and collected by replacing it with the fixed goods due to the inferior quality of Fin, etc.

Determination of reinvestigation

Recognition of the destruction of only 693 parts that have been confirmed to replace the return of goods, among the goods that are discarded by the ▽△;

50 Dismissal other than those deemed to have been added

It shall be deducted from the number of sales for 360 stock quantity in custody without sale.

Determination of reinvestigation

80 Many Acknowledgement

Dismissal

The conversion of the quantity of production by computer is more appropriate;

Dismissal

-

The actual price is not reflected;

Reflection

Where the monthly actual sale price is confirmed, it shall be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price.

Dismissal