Daegu District Court 2012Guhap3561 (2014.02.19)

Appellate Court 2012Gu1269 (03.04)

The plaintiff's joint representative director is reasonable to dispose of the books based on No. B, which are recognized as a book stating the actual details of transactions.

The fact that each of the dispositions of this case was made on the ground of the issuance of a tax invoice excessively and excessively, is legitimate based on the legitimate evidence, which is found in the Plaintiff’s computer when tracking the process of distributing alcoholic beverages and all of the Plaintiff’s joint directors are considered to be a book stating the actual details of transactions.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu190 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA Commercial Corporation

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Guhap3561 Decided February 19, 2014

September 26, 2014

October 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of each of the taxes stated in the separate sheet No. 1, "the initial corrective disposition issued by the defendant against the plaintiff as of Aug. 1, 2011", and "the initial corrective disposition made by the defendant as of Jan. 2, 2012", "the initial corrective disposition made as of Aug. 1, 201 in the separate sheet No. 201," and "the initial corrective disposition made as of Jan. 2, 2012" as of Jan. 2, 2012, and "the initial corrective disposition made by the defendant as of May 1, 2013 in the separate sheet No. 201, the imposition of each additional tax as of May 1, 2013

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s decision is as stated in the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment as described in the following Paragraph 2 to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial. As such, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

In addition, "No. 7 is added to "No. 4, 2012.7.7.4", "No. 4, 2012.7.4", "No. 7 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance", "No. 9 of the court of first instance", "No. 7 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance", "No. 9: Won 9: Won 9: Won 10: Won-Won, Won Won, Won 2Won 2Datast," "MtDb.mb.b. (28,928kb)", "No. 11th judgment of the court of first instance", "No. 258,948k", "No. 9 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance", "No. 19 of the court of first instance", "No. 20 of the court of first instance", "No. 20 of the judgment".20.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On July 4, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the disposition authority should re-examine whether the transaction was an actual transaction by means of confirming the transaction partner and the sales partner with respect to the amount deemed as a violation of the duty to issue a tax invoice. However, the Daegu regional tax office conducted a re-investigation and conducted a fact-finding investigation only about the difference between the Plaintiff’s transaction partner and the 22 places from among the Plaintiff’s transaction partner. Each of the dispositions of this case based on these re-audits by the Defendant is unlawful as against the binding force

B. Determination

1) The re-audit decision that takes place in practice as a type of the decision on the objection filing, etc. is taking the form of re-auditing the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on the whole or part of a single taxable unit to correct the tax base and tax amount or to maintain the initial disposition according to the result. Considering the form and purport of the re-audit decision, the autonomous administrative control function of the administrative appeals system and the unique characteristics of tax law that have a complicated and professional and technical nature, etc., the re-audit decision constitutes a modified decision that leads to the intent of the agency to take part of the decision on the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the objection filing, etc. as to the matters pointed out in the relevant decision, and the re-audit decision takes effect as to the objection filing, etc. by supplementing the contents thereof by the subsequent disposition of the agency (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007DuO00, Jun. 25, 2010).

"2) The Tax Tribunal made a decision on July 4, 2012 that "to re-examine the actual transaction by the method of confirming the customer and the seller." The Daegu regional tax office, from July 23, 2012 to August 2, 2012, analyzed the ratio of conversion amount of alcoholic beverage sales and value-added tax returns to the customer and the seller in order to investigate whether the book contains the actual transaction details, etc. ① The rate of conversion amount of alcoholic beverage sales and the amount of value-added tax returns is clearly different, and the two are selected as the object of the on-site verification when re-audit is conducted, considering the characteristics of the type of business, most of the two categories of business are operated at night, and during the daytime are not in currency, so it is reasonable for the Defendant to re-examine the above excessive amount of tax invoices from 20 years to 19 days to 20 years to 20 days to 20 days to 20 days to 20 days to 30 days to 30 days to 30 days to 20 days to 20.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.