Whether the duty-free oil has been illegally leaked;

In the second instance of the criminal case, it is reasonable to deem that the crime of unlawful outflow of duty-free oil was illegally leaked.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Each notice of tax amount notified by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on each date on which the details of imposition are written (attached Form 1), each exceeding the amount indicated in each appropriate tax column in the disposition imposing value-added tax and corporate tax, and (attached Form 2) each exceeding the amount stated in each appropriate tax column in the notice of change in income amount on each date on which the notice of change in income amount is written shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 65% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's notice of change in the amount of income in each item of income on the date of each disposition entered in the details of imposition (attached Form 1) shall be revoked, respectively, on each item of income recorded on the notice date of notice of change in the amount of income.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (formerly: Korea Co., Ltd.) is a general agent of petroleum for the purpose of oil wholesale business, and the actual operator of Si/Gun/Gu is the Plaintiff.

B. On January 22, 2006, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office received a tax evasion report from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff leaked the duty-free oil and supplied it to the gas station in the middle of the year without issuing a tax invoice. On August 21, 2006, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and the gas station in the middle of the city until September 29, 2006, concluded that the Plaintiff omitted sales of the total amount of KRW 5,605,400, value of the duty-free oil, value of KRW 6,032,126,545, and notified the Defendant of this content.

C. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of 145,878,960 won for the first period of 2003 (from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply), value-added tax of 113,712,290 won for the second period of 203 (from July 1, 2004 to December 31, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply), value-added tax of 203,712,290 won for the first period of 204, value-added tax of 259,185,39,390 won for the second period of 204, value-added tax of 361,150 won for the second period of 205, value-added tax of 203,141,150 won for the first period of 205, 2035,36374 won for the year 2538

D. On June 13, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Si/Gun/Gu Seoul Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as “the first instance court of the relevant criminal case”) were convicted of the following criminal facts (the Plaintiff: fine of KRW 300,000,000 and the imprisonment of KRW 3 years and six months in case of the Si/Gun Special Self-Governing Province: hereinafter referred to as “the second instance of the relevant criminal case”), which was partially accepted the prosecutor’s appeal on November 7, 2008, and the part of the above judgment was reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive on November 18, 201, which became final and conclusive on the grounds that the prosecutor and the Do Special Self-Governing City Special Metropolitan City Special Self-Governing City Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as “the second instance of the relevant criminal case”) appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 28, 2008.

(1) The competent Si/Gun shall:

(가) 2002년경 ★★수산업협동조합(이하 '★★수협'이라 한다)의 면세유 취급 급유소인 잠항급유소를 지어주는 대신 장항급유소의 운영권을 확보한 다음, 신○○(★★수협의 이사로 서 2005. 6. 15. 조합장으로 취임하였다) 등과 공모하여 신○○이 이●●, 김◎◎ 등 중간모 짙잭으로부터 매집해 온 면세유 출고지시서를 이용하여 실제 어민들에게 공급하는 것처럼 하여 2003. 3. 4.경부터 2005. 6. 2.경까지 사이에 [별지 3] 범죄일람표 기재 중 연번 14 내지 22, 24, 25번을 제외한 나머지 연번 기재(이하 '편취일람표' 라 한다)와 같이 ★★수혈(국가)을 기망하여 총 229회에 걸쳐 합계 4. 822 .400L. 3.331. 953 .740원 상당의 면세유를 공급받아 이 를 편취하고,

(B) Although there was a duty to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, it is not a total of 127 copies of the tax invoice from April 25, 2003 to May 30, 2005; and it is a fraud or other unlawful act selling the tax-free milk acquired by deceit as described in paragraph (1) (attached Form 41, such as the entry in the list of crimes):

1) '������주유소' 등의 주유소에 2003년 1기에 204.000L . 공급가액 221,018,182원 , 2003년 2기에 170.000L 공급가액 180,245,455원에 각 판매하여 2003년 1기분 부가 가치세 22,101,818원, 2003년 2기분 부가가치세 18,024,546원, 2003년 사업연도 법인세 51,433,862원을,

2) '������주유소' 등의 주유소에 2004년 1기에 986.000L, 공급가액 1,078,729,091원, 2004년 2기에 348.400L, 공급가액 383.472.000원에 각 판매하여 2004년 1기분 부가가치세 107,872,909원, 2004년 2기분 부가가치세 38.347.200원 . 2004년 사업연도 법인세 165,799,985원을,

3) The sales of 1,108,00 L, supply price of 1,225,869,091 won for the first time in January 2005 to the gas stations, such as △△△△△, etc., and the sales of 1,225,869,09 won for the first time in January 2005, and evades corporate tax of 104,750.868 won for the business year 2005; and

(2) The Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (1)(b) above, sold the said duty-free oil in relation to the Plaintiff’s business and did not issue a tax invoice and evaded the value-added tax and corporate tax.

* The part of the charge of violation of the Petroleum Business Act against forest △ and Plaintiff is omitted.

E. The Si-Eup/Myeon governor illegally leaked the duty-free oil in the military oil reservoir in accordance with the order for the release of duty-free oil collected from fishermen, and sold it to others by keeping it in the store of the third party, other than the oil station of the port oil (duty-free oil handling) or in the store of the e/Si-Eup/Myeon, which is owned by the Si-Eup/Myeon governor, and in fact in the store of the e/Si-Eup/Myeon (hereinafter “instant repository”).

F. Upon the final and conclusive judgment of the second instance related to the relevant criminal case, the Defendant corrected the amount of omission in quarterly sales for each business year on July 3, 2009, which was pending in the instant lawsuit, based on the above judgment on July 3, 2009, and accordingly, issued a decision of correction to reduce or increase each by giving notice of change in income amount as stated in the written claim of each disposition listed in the above paragraph (c) as stated in the [Attachment 1] description of imposition disposition, the value-added tax, the corporate tax imposition disposition, and the notice of change in income amount (attached Form 2), as stated in the written claim (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-8, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 10, 11, and 12-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 9-1 through 5, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 11-1, 2, 3, and 12, and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Whether the dispositions of this case are proper; and

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

"(가) 원고의 직원으로서 면세유 운반을 담당했던 김◆◆은판매 및 인수확인서'를 근거로 원고가 면세유를 부정 유출했다고 제보하였으나, 위 판매 및 인수확인서는 김◆◆이 임의로 작성한 것으로 신빙성이 없다. 따라서 원고가 면세유를 부정 유출했음을 전제로 한 피고의 이 사건 각 처분은 위법하다.",(나) 이 사건 각 처분 중 소득금액변동통지 부분은 매출누락금액을 상여로 처분함에 있어 면세유 매입금액을 차감하지 아니한 잘못이 있다.

(2) Defendant’s principal

임☆☆이 관련 형사 제2심에서 ★★수협으로부터 편취일람표와 같이 총 4,822,400L 의 면세유를 공급받아 이를 편취한 사실이 확정된 이상 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 모두 시중 주유소업자 등에게 판매하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고의 면세유 매출누락 의 유량을 확정함에 있어 위 4,822,400L를 기초로 하되 세무조사시 나타난 자료 등을 참작한 실지조사방식에 의하여 계산한 결과, 원고의 면세유 매출누락의 유량이 [별지 5] 매출누락표 기재와 같이 산출되었으므로, 이를 전제로 한 피고의 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff illegally leaked the duty-free oil

원고의 실질적인 대표자인 임☆☆이 관련 형사 제2섬에서 ★★수협으로부터 편취 일람표와 같이 총 4,822,400L의 면세유를 공급받아 편취하였다는 범죄사실로 유죄판결을 선고받아 위 판결이 확정된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 갑 7호증의 1 내지 295, 갑 10, 11호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 관련 형사 제1섬에서 임☆☆은 위 판매 및 인수확인서의 신빙성에 관하여 다투었으나 위 법원은 이를 모두 배척한 사실, 그 후 임☆☆은 관련 형사 제2심에서 위 범죄사실을 모두 자백한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고가 4,822,400L상당의 면세유를 부정 유출하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 위 판결의 사실 인정을 배척할 만한 특별한 사정이 인정되지 않는다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) a statement to the effect that the purchase amount of duty-free oil has not been reduced;

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence 7, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant disposed of bonus calculated by subtracting the purchase cost of the list of the total income amount adjustment from the omitted sales amount of the list of the total income amount adjustment, which is a supplementary statement of the corporate tax resolution. Thus, the prior plaintiff's assertion on this different premise is without merit.

(c) Quantity of the duty-free oil omitted.

(A) Generally, the burden of proof of facts requiring taxation exists in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax-exempt disposition. Thus, in the imposition of value-added tax or the imposition of corporate tax, the burden of proof on whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is the basis of calculating the tax base, or on the amount of income should be, in principle, the tax authority. However, if there was considerable proof on this point to the extent that the tax authority reasonably approves it, the person disputing it needs to prove that it is easy to present relevant evidence and materials.

"(나) [별지 5] 매출누락표 중주유소'란 기재 중 순번 19, 20번의 이 사건 저장소를 제외한 나머지 주유소(이하기타 주유소'라 한다)에 관한 부분",갑 11, 12호증, 을 23호증의 1 내지 17의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합 하면, 임☆☆은 조직적인 방법으로 매집해 온 면세유 출고지시서를 이용하여, 사실은 어민들에게 면세유를 공급하지 않으면서도 마치 이를 공급한 것처럼 가장하는 적극적 인기망행위를 통하여 장기간에 걸쳐 ★★수협으로부터 상당한 양의 면세유를 편취하였고, 이를 타에 판매하기 위하여 판매망을 확보하는 등의 행위를 한 사실, 이에 따라 원고는 각 사업연도의 분기에 이 사건 저장소를 제외한 기타 주유소에 '공급유량'란 기재 각 해당 면세유를 배달해 준 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 그렇다면 원고는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이 사건 저장소를 제외한 기타 주유소에 ★★수협으로부터 부정 유출한 '공급유량' 기재 각 해당 면세유 합계 3,148,400L (= 2003년 1기 172,000L + 2003 년 2기 200,000L + 2004년 1기 1,006,000L + 2004년 2기 434,000L + 2005년 1기 1,336,000L)를 판매하였음에도 불구하고 각 사업연도 부가가치세, 소득세 신고시를 이 를 누락시켰다고 봄이 상당하다.

(C) The part concerning the instant storage place Nos. 19,20 among the indications of omission in sales

The storage of this case is a place in which the Do governor was actually in possession and stored or stored the duty-free oil supplied from the military oil reservoir of this case. The reason for the taxation of value-added tax is the supply of goods and services, and the other party's transaction price cannot be specified at all without confirming the other party's transaction price, etc., it is illegal for the plaintiff to consider that the plaintiff sold each of the supplied oil in this case to the oil station during the market and impose tax on the plaintiff by estimating the sale price, etc. Accordingly, the total of 1,694,000 won in each of the dispositions of this case (i) 20,000 + 20,0000 + 60,0000 in 203 + 636,000 in 204,000 in 204 + 636,000 in 205, 205, 2005.

(4) Calculation of legitimate tax amount and income amount

In addition to the quantity of exempted oil discharged from sales, there is no dispute between the parties on the tax base on which each disposition of this case was based, and as seen earlier, the quantity of the remaining gas stations except for the storage place of this case’s quarterly sales omitted during each business year shall not be less than 172,000, 200, 200, 200, 2003, 1,006,000, 204, 434,000, 204, 11,36, 2000, 205, 2000, and 1,336,000, each party’s tax amount of value-added tax is the same as the amount entered in the item of value-added tax calculation [Attachment 6] calculated in accordance with the item of each disposition of this case’s fair taxation, and 2.3. The amount of each disposition’s legitimate tax amount shall be the same as the amount entered in the item of each disposition of this case’s tax [attached 7].

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.