Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap631 (Law No. 21, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0768 ( November 09, 2010)

It is legitimate to investigate and determine the amount of money deposited in the financial account and determine the sales.

(1) On-site investigations (as in the judgment of the court of first instance) do not include any special method restriction as to whether it can be objectively based on the method of distributing actual income. Therefore, determining the sales of taxpayers by investigating the amount deposited in the financial institution account of the taxpayer is a objective and lawful on-site investigation.

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu35653. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX

Director of the District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap631 decided September 21, 2011

April 3, 2012

May 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On July 13, 2009, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff value-added tax of 000 won for the first quarter of 6204, 000 won for the second quarter of 2004, 000 won for the second quarter of 2004, 000 won for the first quarter of 2005, 000 won for the second quarter of 2005, 000 won for the second quarter of 2005, 000 won for the second quarter of 2006, 000 won for the first quarter of 2006, and 00 won for the second quarter of 200 for the second quarter of 206.

1. A cited part;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

/ The factory located in 630-1, 298-7 of the first instance court decision No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "place of business of this case").

The parts are as follows.

630-1 Site and its ground factory (the real estate registration book includes the number of a factory in the register of real estate referred to in Article 298-7 of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government GATT 298-7, but it is not possible to verify the existence of 298-7 lot numbers in XX 298-7, except the real estate registration book, and the parties do not dispute that the above factory is located on the ground of Article 630-1 of the XX Dong 630-1, a lot number on the register. hereinafter referred to as the "place of business of this case").

At the bottom of the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the 10th "in this case's place of business," and the 630th "in this case's place of business, which is in contact with the present case's place of business, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government."

In the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the "Witness A" in Part 15 of the 6th sentence is regarded as the "A of the witness of the first instance court".

In addition, the part of the first instance court's appeal Nos. 9 through 8 is as follows.

In light of the fact that the business operator number and trade name inquired at the above customer comprehensive inquiry meeting do not coincide with the business operator registration status of the present business establishment, and the above inquiry date is indicated as the " August 5, 1999, which was the date before the conclusion of the lease agreement with the present business establishment", it is difficult to view that the present business establishment was in a state of official leave from the first quarter of January 2004 to the second quarter of February 2006 only by the above customer comprehensive inquiry meeting."

In the first instance court ruling, the phrase “electrics and “electrics” in the 9th instance court ruling shall be deleted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.