beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. Among the instant lawsuits, the value-added tax for 201 No. 11,413,030 won, and the second period in 2012.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in entertainment tavern business under the trade name “C” from December 1, 2009 to Daegu Suwon-gu, 2009. 2) D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company that engages in import liquor specialized wholesale business from August 14, 1990 to Daegu Suwon-gu E.
B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax on the first half of 201, the second half of 2011, the second half of 2012, and the first half of 2013, as shown below, to the Defendant.
(Units: 5,745,345,345, 8,108, 635, 070, 727 15,185,07, 400 input tax amount of 4,037,074, 393, 348, 7508, 850, 859, 7052, 705,367, 616,070932, 360, 875, 420, 102, 904, 309, 6363, 360, 420 paid for the first period of 2nd period of 2013, 2013.
C. (1) On November 2013, the director of the Nam Daegu District Tax Office conducted a non-regular tax investigation on D’s “F main office” as a business partner of D, and confirmed that the said main office purchased the two main offices without obtaining a tax invoice from D, and paid the liquor price to G’s deposit account as an employee of D. (2) The director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office from March 13, 2014 to that effect.
5. Until 22. 22. D, the distribution tracking investigation was conducted on D.
In addition, the Daegu Director of the Regional Tax Office investigated the details of issuance of sales tax invoices to D's customers and the details of financial transactions on 19 accounts among 27 accounts, including H and 11 shareholders, G, etc. (hereinafter "related accounts").
3) As a result of the foregoing investigation, the director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office issued the sales tax invoice of KRW 2,841,046,973, at least 10% of the gross sales, to the 104 business partners including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, from 2011 to 2013, and issued the sales tax invoice of the amount equivalent to the amount excessively to the business partners whose trade name is unknown. D. Accordingly, the disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff was imposed.