The plaintiff did not lend his name to the liquor company during the period of suspension of license.

The Plaintiff was unable to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the name to the liquor company during the period of suspension of license and supplied the alcoholic beverages with non-data, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Thus, the instant disposition of suspension

Article 15 of the Liquor Tax Act: Suspension of Sale of Liquor

2015Guhap1749 Revocation of a license suspension

○ Liquor Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

on October 18, 2016

October 28, 2016

1. Disposition of suspending a license for alcoholic beverage sales business for three months, which the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff on June 25, 2015, and August 6, 2015

Measures for reducing the quantity of alcoholic beverages shipped to each company listed in the attached Table 1 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Each disposition described in paragraph 1 shall be suspended from its execution until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is pronounced.

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Busan regional tax office conducted a tax investigation from September 17, 2014 to October 27, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that “the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to ○○ Alcoholic Beverages Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Alcoholic Beverages”) subject to the disposition of suspension of alcoholic beverage sales licenses for the second period of 201 and the first period of 2012, where the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of suspension of alcoholic beverage sales licenses for the second period of 201 and the first period of 2012.

B. On June 25, 2015, the Defendant suspended a comprehensive alcoholic beverage sales business license for three months (from August 14, 2015 to November 13, 2015) on the ground that the violation ratio of the duty to issue a tax invoice was 2.7.4% in 2011, and 1.8.5% in 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension”). (c) The Plaintiff filed the instant revocation lawsuit against the instant disposition of suspension on July 9, 2015, and “the execution of the instant disposition of suspension is suspended until the instant judgment is pronounced” was suspended.

D. As above, the Plaintiff was subject to a decision to suspend execution, and the Defendant’s provision on the disposition of liquor tax affairs on August 6, 2015

Article 91 (3) of the National Tax Service Directive No. 2075 of December 30, 2014, and Article 91 (3), manufacturer, importer, importer.

Based on Article 3 of the Notice of Standard Quantities for Delivery (Notice of National Tax Service No. 2015-25 on June 30, 2015)

The phrase " August 7, 2015," written in the complaint No. 2015-Guhap2049, stated in the plaintiff's claim, appears to be a clerical error. The plaintiff's purchaser notified each company listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is the purchaser, to reduce the amount of alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff by 50% by the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive (hereinafter "the instant reduction disposition"), and notified the plaintiff thereof.

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition of suspension, but was dismissed on December 28, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, 11; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 14, 16 (including various numbers, 2015Guhap1749; hereinafter the same shall apply); Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5; Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 14 (2015Guhap2049); the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the instant disposition of suspension

The Plaintiff, as an employee of ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, has actually employed four persons, including four persons, including ○○ Alcoholic Beverages (hereinafter “4 persons, including ○○, etc.”) who were engaged in business during the license period of ○ Alcoholic Beverages, and had not leased the name on ○ Alcoholic Beverages, and thus, the instant disposition of suspension was unlawful by misunderstanding the fact, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretionary authority.

2) As to the reduction disposition of this case

Since the instant disposition of suspension is unlawful as stated in the above paragraph (1), the instant disposition of mitigation, based on the premise that the instant disposition of suspension is lawful, is also unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the instant disposition of suspension

A) The following facts were acknowledged by adding to the purport of pleadings at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales of alcoholic beverages, which had been deposited in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales of alcoholic beverages, and the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending sales of alcoholic beverages from November 16, 201 to February 15, 201. Four persons such as ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales of alcoholic beverages. 6% of the total amount of money paid to the Plaintiff on February 29, 201.

B) However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the aforementioned evidence and the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 12 (2014Guhap2936) to the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the following facts and circumstances are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff lent the name of the plaintiff to ○○ Alcoholic Beverages during the period of suspension of license and supplied them as non-data, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the instant disposition of suspension is unlawful.

① On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (no charge) at the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (○○ District Prosecutors’ Office 2015 type 83754) that was accused by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was also subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (no charge) on October 22, 2014 on the grounds similar to the Plaintiff.

② In the prosecutor’s investigation of the above criminal case, ○○○○○ employee stated that “○○○○ employee was employed by the company near each customer rather than by the direction of anyone during the period of suspension of license for ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, but did not know about the name name lending.” The Plaintiff paid 4 major insurance premiums to 4 persons such as Park○, etc. and withheld and paid them. In light of the contents of the above statement and the details of the payment of wages, the possibility that 4 persons such as Park○, etc. were actually employed by the Plaintiff for 3 months cannot be ruled out.

③ With respect to ○○○○○○’s wage deposited in the account, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff only transferred the wage to the account designated by the business employees, and the tea ○○ stated that the Plaintiff would have repaid the money which ○○○○ had been used at the time of ○○ liquor. The Plaintiff’s above assertion appears to be reliable in light of the statement of ○○○.

④ Around the beginning of the license suspension period of ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, the Plaintiff purchased three of the used vehicles through the ○○○ mar, but sold the above used vehicles again to the ○○ marter at the time of expiration of the license suspension period. However, the Plaintiff did not acquire the above vehicles from the ○ mar, but was actually issued a purchase price and tax invoice between the Plaintiff and the ○ marter, and the Plaintiff did not seem to have returned to the ○ mar alcohol again.

⑤ There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and ○ Alcoholic Beverages paid the price for the name lending between the Plaintiff and ○ Alcoholic Beverages. During the period of suspension of license, profits and losses arising from four business activities, such as ○○, etc., are deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff.

2) As to the reduction disposition of this case

As seen earlier, as long as the instant disposition of suspension is unlawful, the instant disposition of reduction based on the premise that the instant disposition of revocation is lawful cannot be recognized as the grounds for such disposition.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, all of them shall be accepted, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.