Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Busan High Court-2016-Nu21442 ( November 23, 2016)
Title
(C) If the person is in the position of the enterpriser even if he/she has transacted with a person without business registration, the penalty tax to be paid in the absence of evidence should be imposed.
Summary
(Summary) If a person who trades without documentary evidence is in a position acceptable to the business operator, such as the type, size, and shape of the transaction, even though the person has not registered his/her business, the penalty tax to be collected without documentary evidence is legitimate.
Related statutes
Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but there is no reason or reason to exclude the reasons provided in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal (the ground of appeal that the purchasing agencies of this case are actual traders is not only the issue of fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below, but also the fact-finding recognized as data in the relevant criminal judgment. In addition, in light of the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the court of first instance that the court below cited by the court below, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have known that the purchasing agencies of this case are not actual traders, and it cannot be deemed to be gross negligence even if he had knowledge of the fact-finding, so the court below's decision that the rejection of imposition of additional tax is not recognized, is acceptable. In addition, in light of the size and content of the transaction, it is presumed that the real trader of this case is an enterpriser provided in Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, so the circumstance that the purchaser constitutes simplified
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the above Act by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition.