Whether the sale of non-data is made

The plaintiff asserts that all of the tax invoices were issued by the third party on his own name, but it is reasonable to deem that there was a new transaction corresponding to the tax invoice, and since the comprehensive income tax was omitted, the disposition that included the amount in the global income amount is legitimate.

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Income Amount)

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. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 12,359,410 on April 9, 2003 against the plaintiff on April 1997.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004Guhap1290 Decided January 1, 200

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 12,359,410 on the Plaintiff on April 9, 2003 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, and 9, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. From April 10, 1997, the Plaintiff operated the ○○○○○○○ (the location is Incheon Metropolitan City; hereinafter the same shall apply)’s ○○○○○○○○○, a trade name called “○○○○○○” from ○○○, which was closed on December 6, 1999.

B. However, around July 2001, 2001, the head of ○○ Tax Office filed an accusation against ○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office on charges of issuing processed tax invoices. On or around June 2002, ○○ Tax Office notified ○○○○○○○○ Construction Corporation (hereinafter “○○ Construction”) of the processed data of ○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Corporation (hereinafter “○○○○○”) in connection with the above accusation case, the head of ○○ Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the processed data on or around December 24, 1997 of the supply value of 30,115,80 won as of December 24, 197 [the items are 30,115,80 won as a new blade; hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). The head of ○○○ Construction Corporation, upon considering the instant processed tax invoice as the result of the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant construction on or around January 203, 2002, notified the Plaintiff of the instant tax invoice.

D. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted the supply value of KRW 30,115,800 on the instant tax invoice from sales in 1997, the Defendant added the said amount to the global income tax in 1997, thereby correcting the amount of tax and imposing additional tax on the Plaintiff on April 9, 2003, and notified the Plaintiff of additional correction and notification of KRW 12,359,410 as global income tax for the year 197 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) On December 24, 1997, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition included the amount in global income in the year 1997 is lawful, since the Plaintiff supplied ○○○○ operated by ○○○○○, a new amount equivalent to KRW 30,115,800 on the instant tax invoice, which was omitted at the time of filing and paying the global income tax for the year 197.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff, while there was a new transaction between ○○ and ○○, from June 11, 1997 to March 31, 1998, the Plaintiff did not provide 30,115,80 won to ○○○ on or around November 1997. As to the actual transaction between ○○○○ and ○○○○○, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the supplier as ○○○ or a third person designated by ○○○○○○○. As the instant tax invoice is irrelevant to itself, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of the argument, ○○○○○○○ 2 through 5 and 9, and the testimony of ○○ 2, 00, 197, 3, 106, and 107, which were awarded a contract for the ○○ apartment located in ○○ 2, 40, 96, and 107, and which were supplied to ○○ 9, 196, 4, 9, 9, 9, 7, 9, 9, 9, 7, 9, 9, 9, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 6, 9, 6, 9, 6, 9, 9, and 9, 9, 10, 9, and 9.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.