logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.05.31 2011구합905
부가가치세 및 종합소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 16, 2005 to May 14, 2009, the Plaintiff, as a person who runs the business of wholesale of apartment products in the name of “C” in Chuncheon City B, was mainly engaged in a direct sales outlet of the E-stock company located in Chuncheon City D, and sold the apartment products.

B. Five employees of the defendant, including F, are "the first investigation" as a result of the plaintiff's business trip from December 18, 2008 to December 26, 2008 and conducting an on-site investigation such as confirmation of account books.

) The Plaintiff reported the value-added tax on the amount of income (the sales omitted) while receiving transfer of the sales proceeds of the apartment products to another person’s account, such as spouse, relative relative, etc.

C. On January 29, 2009, the defendant decided to conduct a tax investigation on the above place of business, and the same year.

2. 2. The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff as follows, and thereafter the tax investigation was commenced on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second investigation”). After reviewing the details of the report of the companies returning to the investigation reason from February 2, 2009 to February 13, 2009 during the investigation period from February 13, 2009 from April 16, 2005 to June 30, 2008, I were selected as a person subject to the investigation to verify the propriety of the report.

(Article 81-6 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

Around February 12, 2012, the second investigation period, the Defendant: (a) around February 12, 2012, when the Plaintiff purchased high-amount products, such as house beds, it is necessary to check the financial transaction details of the account of the Plaintiff’s spouse and relatives, etc. on the grounds that the Plaintiff sold the products using a separate account number in the name of another person and omitted the amount of revenue. This is determined to be “where it is necessary to confirm local financial transactions” under subparagraph 2 of Article 81-8 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “the Framework Act on National Taxes”) and then conduct a tax investigation from February 16, 2009 to September 19, 209.

arrow