The part of the claim for revocation with respect to the original disposition (including additional duties) shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second year of 2012 against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2017, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first year of 2013, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first year of 2014, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first year of 2015 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/20 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

A. On May 3, 2008, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AAAS, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 2008 and runs the retail business of folklores.

B. On April 10, 2012, ○○, an incorporated foundation, is a local government-funded institution that was established by contributing property in Yangyang-gun to the management, operation, etc. of ○○, which is a aquatic plant garden located in Gyeonggi-si. An incorporated foundation is a local government-funded institution. An opportunity to foster the OO culture of an incorporated foundation (hereinafter “OO culture”) is a corporation established by Lee○ for various cultural activities, and ○○ from around 2004 to 30 years before the establishment of the incorporated foundation.

Around September 26, 2012, a foundation has been managing B, and performed the 'N' creation project within ○○○○ through the entrustment of the 'N' development project (the ○○ surrounding environment improvement project).

C. As part of the NAN creation project, the auditor of the Seoul regional tax office notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the Plaintiff supplied goods to an opportunity for the OEM and received the price (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transaction”) with respect to the construction of the old bridge (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) implemented by both Pyeong-gun and OEM (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”).

D. On December 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2001, Jan. 9, 2017; KRW 0000 of the value-added tax for the second period of No. 2017, Jan. 9, 2017; and KRW 0000 of the value-added tax for the first period of No. 1, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff had omitted the instant transaction at the time of filing a return on the output tax of value-added tax. In addition, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 100 of the value-added tax for the first period of No. 1, 2014, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of No. 2015 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

E. On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on the Defendant’s notice of correction and notification of value-added tax as stated in the Defendant’s paragraph (d). On June 9, 2017, the Defendant rejected the application for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax as of June 201, on the ground that the period for filing an objection has expired, and rendered a decision to dismiss the remainder of the application. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 25, 2017, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the application for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax as of September 28, 2017 on the ground that the period for filing an application for revocation of the imposition

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, 11, 13, 14 evidence, and all pleadings

chapter 6

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the part seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of time, 201 is legitimate.

A. The defendant's assertion

Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second time in 2011 is unlawful because it does not comply with the filing period of the previous trial procedure.

B. Determination

1) According to Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax appeal shall be filed within 90 days from the date (the date of receiving a notice of disposition) on which the relevant disposition is known. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts cannot be filed without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudgment and a decision thereon. An administrative litigation seeking cancellation of a disposition can not be filed. Unlike the discretionary principle of administrative litigation applicable to general administrative litigation, the requisite principle of administrative litigation under the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to a request for examination or a request for adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such a case, a request for examination or a request for adjudgment must be lawful. Thus, if the request for examination or a request for adjudgment is unlawful due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, such administrative litigation cannot be deemed to have gone through a necessary transfer procedure under the Framework Act on National

2) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff received a tax notice on the imposition of value-added tax on December 7, 2016 on the second imposition of value-added tax on December 201, 201, but 90 days have passed since the receipt date of the said disposition, and the Plaintiff filed a request for a review against the Defendant on March 24, 2017, and a request for a trial against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 25, 2017. Thus, the above request for a review and a request for a trial are unlawful since they were filed after the lapse

3) Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax for the second period of No. 2011 among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not go through a necessary transfer procedure.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

There is no fact that the Plaintiff supplied goods or services to the opportunity for O culture tending. The account that deposited the money for O culture tending is only used by the Plaintiff’s model KimO for the deposit transaction of OO culture tending opportunity, and the relevant documents were prepared by KimO by misappropriation by stealing without any actual transaction with OO culture tending opportunity.

B. Determination

1) Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that transactions concerning the supply of goods or services by an entrepreneur shall be subject to value-added tax. The term “supply of goods or services” under the aforementioned provision refers to the delivery or transfer of goods or the provision of services, or the use of goods, facilities, or rights, pursuant to all contractual or legal grounds. Thus, even if the goods or services were received from the opposite contractual party, they cannot be subject to value-added tax unless a counter-party relationship for

On the other hand, whether there was a transaction such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the burden of proof on the supply value which is a tax base

2) According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 through 10, the following facts are recognized:

① From April 21, 201 to October 11, 2011, an opportunity for O Culture to cultivate deposited KRW 000 in one bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant account”). In the internal document stating the details of expenditure of the instant construction project, the said deposit is indicated as “refluent cost” out of the instant construction project.

② Also, there is a product estimate and a delivery estimate in the Plaintiff’s name stating that the O culture would supply folklores, such as 140,000,000 won (including value-added tax)’s Korean language pattern, pattern pattern, and fireworks pattern, and the said quotation has the Plaintiff’s seal impression affixed to the said quotation, and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, business registration certificate, and copy of the passbook are attached thereto. According to the above supply contract, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of goods with the content that the Plaintiff claims the payment of KRW 000 on January 28, 2013 as the instant account by January 31, 2013; the opportunity for O culture to foster; the Plaintiff’s purchase of NN walls and portraits (Korean language pattern, painting pattern, etc.); and on January 29, 2013, the O culture deposited in the instant account with the opportunity to deposit KRW 000,000 as the production cost.

③ On February 6, 2016, an opportunity for O culture to undertake an inspection of the goods that the Plaintiff completed the inspection of the condition and quantity of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and the goods was affixed a photograph of the goods during the inspection process.

3) However, in full view of the above evidence, witness KimO's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, KimO appears to have deposited and withdrawn money by providing an account in the name of the plaintiff to the above company without any actual transaction with an opportunity to foster OO culture, and related documents also appear to have been prepared by KimO arbitrarily stolen the seal impression and the certificate of seal impression in the name of the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff provided goods or services to the opportunity to foster OO culture.

① The Plaintiff’s type KimO stated in this Court as follows:

43,370,000 won deposited in 201

-In promoting the creation of a wood-line model with respect to the instant construction works around 2011, for example, the O Culture tending opportunity;

The cost was produced in low China, and for this purpose, the President EOO, etc. of an opportunity to promote O culture.

In this way, KimO was accompanied by the process of responding to Chinese manufacturers outside China.

-The expenses for the official travel of EOO and China for the receipt of the money from the O Culture to the instant account.

And the money deposited into the account of this case was withdrawn again in order to encash the production cost of the wood line model.

of those who are related to the OO Culture Opportunities business, shall be used to cover the expenses for Chinese travel and the expenses for the production of a wood-line model.

was made.

-In order to cover the costs of the money deposited into the instant account with an opportunity to undertake O Culture;

The relevant documents shall be made as if the goods were actually supplied, such as the production of a wood-line model, and the cost processing shall be

one is the same.

80 million won deposited in 2012 and 60 million won deposited in 2013

-O culture has been given an opportunity to pay the said money to the instant account, but the Plaintiff has received Oculture;

no goods have been actually supplied to the meeting.

-However, if the OO culture has deposited money into the account of this case, the KimO shall prohibit this from withdrawing it;

The money was paid in accordance with this instruction.

-Written estimate, delivery estimates, etc. of the plaintiff's name will be accompanied by the documents of the person involved in the O culture;

The certificate of personal seal impression has been drawn up.

② The representative director of O Culture Opportunities also submitted to this court a confirmation statement that it conforms to the testimony of the above KimO.

③ Examining the transaction details of the instant account, most of the money deposited from an opportunity for OO culture was withdrawn in cash around that time, and such transaction details also conform to the testimony of OO.

④ Meanwhile, EO was subject to criminal punishment for committing the crime of receiving cash from the above companies and using it for debt repayment while supplying materials and landscaping to ○○○○○, and paying false transaction fees to the said companies, landscaping companies, etc. As such, there is sufficient possibility that OO would have deposited money by pretending that it was actually supplied without being provided with goods, etc.

⑤ There is no fact that the Plaintiff has been investigated by an investigative agency in connection with a criminal case against OO.

5. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax of No. 201 among the instant lawsuit is dismissed, and the remainder of the claim seeking revocation of the instant disposition is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.