Whether a false tax invoice is false

The purpose of the provision that the input tax amount specified in the tax invoice shall be deducted is to deduct the input tax amount, because there is a significant significance in the fact that there was mutual transactions between the parties to the transaction in a specific taxable period, so the input tax amount of the tax invoice which

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act Article 60

2015Guhap105222 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Stock Companies

The Director of the National Tax Service

May 26, 2016

August 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposing value-added tax (including additional tax) shall be revoked in all of the disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 2,305,671,640 in the attached Form 2,305,671,640

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 2, 2002, the Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the daily advertising agency business for small scale business operators from October 2, 2002, and has 38 member stores for each region across the country (32 member stores, 6 non-permanent operators) and run the business by issuing and distributing books of business and trade name.

B. The Plaintiff’s franchise store is classified into “direct franchise store” and “non-permanent franchise store.” Direct franchise store is a franchise store operated by the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff’s personal business registration under the name of its employee (hereinafter “instant business establishment”). Non-permanent franchise store is a franchise store operated by the Plaintiff in the manner of receiving fees from the operator of the pertinent franchise store instead of having the Plaintiff independently operate the pertinent franchise store and having the Plaintiff conduct the business. The current status of registration of the instant business establishment is as follows.

As above, the Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax by receiving a tax invoice according to its business registration after registering as an individual business operator in the name of the employee under the direct credit card merchant.

C. The Defendant conducted a consolidated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff from November 29, 2012 to April 6, 2013, and recognized the sales and purchase of each of the instant workplace as the Plaintiff’s transaction based on the premise that the actual business operator of the instant workplace is the Plaintiff, and subsequently corrected and dismissed corporate tax and value-added tax against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the initial disposition”). However, the Defendant acknowledged the deduction of the Plaintiff’s input tax amount as the Plaintiff’s input tax amount for the purchase transaction of the instant workplace.

D. On December 2013, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted an audit on the business of the Defendant, and imposed an additional tax on the registration of title under Article 22(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “former Value-Added Tax Act”) on the instant place of business. The head of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office imposed an additional tax on the instant place of business by deducting the input tax amount under the tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) issued by other business operators during the period of value-added tax from January 2008 to January 2013. Furthermore, the head of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office requested the Defendant to correct the additional tax for unjust underreporting under Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 47-4(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the “former Framework Act on National Taxes”).

E. In accordance with the above corrective order, the Defendant imposed KRW 411,880,610,00 of the additional tax on the registration of title in addition to the initial disposition on March 10, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "first disposition of this case"). On August 19, 2014, in addition to the initial disposition and the first disposition of this case, the Defendant imposed KRW 1,893,737,030 in total for the principal tax on the non-deduction of the input tax amount and the additional tax on the non-deduction of the input tax amount (hereinafter referred to as "second disposition of this case"), and imposed KRW 1,893,737,030 in total for the non-deduction of the input tax amount (hereinafter referred to as "the second disposition of this case") and the second disposition of this case

F. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal by dissatisfied with the instant Disposition No. 1. On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant Disposition No. 2 and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 18, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the request for a trial against the instant Disposition No. 2 on August 12, 2015 and on August 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant’s denial of the deduction of the relevant input tax amount by deeming the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact is against the legal principles on the validity of the business registration under another’s name, and the registration number of the supplier is stipulated as a requisite entry item, and the name of the supplier is not stipulated as a requisite entry item, and is in violation of the legislative intent of Article 16(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

2) In relation to the imposition of additional tax on the Defendant’s registration of the name of the head office from 1st to 1st, 2013, the Plaintiff’s act of registering the business in the name of the head office of the Plaintiff, and the act of registering the business in the name of his/her employee who is not the Plaintiff’s name is not a “act of registering the business under Article 5 in the name of another person prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 22(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, but a “act of using the business under Article 8 in the name of another person” under Article 60(1)2 of the revised Value-Added Tax Act, which was enacted as of January 1, 2014, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s disposition is an unlawful disposition that violates the principle of non-sufficiency.

3) In the instant tax invoice, the Defendant’s imposition of an under-reported additional tax and an under-reported additional tax based on such premise are unlawful, since the Defendant’s act of registering the instant business place in the name of his employee does not constitute an “unfair method” or “unlawful act,” which is a requirement for the application of an under-reported additional tax with respect to under-reported return of value-added tax, and thus, the Defendant’s imposition of an under-reported additional tax is unlawful.

4) With respect to the Defendant’s imposition of the additional tax on registration of title for the first term portion of 2008, value-added tax 20,910,510 for the first term portion of 2008, and value-added tax 29,251,90 for the second term portion of 208 after the lapse of the exclusion period for imposition. In relation to the imposition of value-added tax on the premise of non-deduction of the input tax, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2008, 106,627,50 for the second term portion of 208, and 137,15,920 for the second term portion of value-added tax for 208, and 182,810, and 290 for the first term portion of value-added

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether imposition of value-added tax upon non-deduction of input tax amount is unlawful

A) Article 17(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that an entrepreneur shall calculate the tax amount by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his/her own business. Article 17(2) of the same Act provides that a tax invoice issued under Article 16(1)1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as "necessary entry items") shall include the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16(1)1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as "necessary entry items") in the tax invoice issued under Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 16(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall be calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. Article 17(2) of the same Act provides that "the input tax amount shall be entered in the tax invoice issued under

B) For a normal operation of the pre-stage tax credit system under Article 17(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, considering the fact that it is essential to mutually verify the input tax amount to be deducted by an entrepreneur at each transaction stage in each taxable period and the output tax amount to be collected by the pre-stage entrepreneur at each transaction stage, the main text of Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted in cases where all or part of the requisite entries of the tax invoice are entered differently from the facts. The legislative intent lies in preparing a kind of sanctions to secure the accuracy and accuracy of the tax invoice, which serves as the basis for the operation of the value-added tax system, separate from the principle of substantial taxation (Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du35706, Feb. 18, 2016; 2002Du4761

(see, e.g., the supply of goods or services, such as tax invoices, was substantially made.

or, even if there is no duty to issue such tax invoice, the input tax amount shall be deducted from the output tax amount.

It is not true that Article 17(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is different.

The meaning is different from the name of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation.

If there is another person to whom such other person actually belongs, the person to whom such person actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment.

In light of the purpose of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that tax invoices shall apply,

Contracts, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services with respect to which the descriptions of the books are entered;

A person who actually supplies or is supplied with such goods or services, notwithstanding formal entries;

It refers to cases in which the value, timing, etc. are inconsistent with each other.

C) The Plaintiff is actually supplied with the registration number of the person who received the “supply” stated in the instant tax invoice.

Defendant’s transfer on the ground that it is a registration number of business registration registered under another person’s name, not the Plaintiff

The tax invoice is required to be stated under Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

An input tax amount shall not be levied because the registration number of the person to be supplied is a tax invoice entered differently from the fact.

With regard to the limitation, if the defendant's imposition of value-added tax is legitimate, the business registration under another person.

In fact, the registration number of the actual business registration has no effect as the business registration of the actual businessman;

The business registration number of the business operator must be presumed to be the business registration number of the business operator.

In relation to the use of another person's name, the actual operator's association who is not the nominal owner

There is no difference in that it forms a place of business, and the station of business registration under another person's name.

As long as an unregistered penalty tax cannot be imposed because it has the effect by the actual business registration of the Si;

Taxes from an actual business operator on the place of business registered under another person's name;

If value-added tax is reported and paid upon receipt of the invoice within the statutory deadline, the purchase tax related thereto.

It argues that it is reasonable to view that the amount can be deducted.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s input tax amount on the instant tax invoice is the actual entrepreneur’s input tax amount.

(1) The value-added tax shall be assessed as follows: (a) whether it should be deducted or not; (b) as seen earlier;

Article 17 (2) 1 of the Act is different from the facts to be entered in the tax invoice issued by an entrepreneur.

In the case of entry, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and Article 16 shall not be deducted.

Paragraph 1(2)(2) refers to the registration number of the person who is supplied as one of the necessary entries in the tax invoice.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013).

under section 60(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act")

Part of the necessary entries in the gold account statement is erroneously entered, but such entry is out of the tax account statement.

(1) Where transactions are confirmed in view of the necessary matters or discretionary matters to be stated therein, the example;

This provision provides that input tax may be deducted externally, and this provision provides that input tax may be deducted externally.

the basis of national fiscal revenue to the extent that the tax accounts for a enormous portion of the internal tax revenue;

The current VAT system that adopts the so-called tax credit law in all stages under circumstances.

The purpose of ensuring the accuracy and reliability of a tax invoice by exposing transactions between the parties thereto;

The following sanctions are defined as a kind of sanctions.

On the other hand, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 to 8 shall include the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) The plaintiff has intentionally issued a branch office with respect to the business of this case.

supply by the Plaintiff, in fact, after completing the formal individual business registration in its employees’ name;

Even though they are received, in form, an individual business under the above employees, who is entirely separate from the plaintiff,

of this case, it can be recognized that the purchase tax invoice was received by the person to whom the tax invoice was supplied.

The entry tax invoice shall be as stipulated in Articles 16 (1) 2 and 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

Tax amount in which the registration number of one of the necessary descriptions is entered differently from the fact;

Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act that is entered differently from the facts

It cannot be deemed by mistake as provided in subparagraph 2.

D) Furthermore, in the current Value-Added Tax System, the tax invoice system between the parties is a trade.

Tax payment that facilitates the dissemination of income tax and corporate tax as well as value-added tax by withdrawing;

Value-Added Tax Act has the function of mutual verification and tax between the parties to the transaction.

supply that provides for the exchange of invoice and the deduction of the input tax amount stated in the above tax invoice;

An input tax amount collected by a person who receives an input tax amount by proving the payment of the input tax amount as a tax invoice.

There is a meaning to refund, but a mutual transaction between the parties in a specific taxable period.

There is a significant significance that the facts were disclosed, and the decision of the plaintiff itself is significant.

because the person who received the plaintiff was not entitled to a legitimate tax invoice, that person is not entitled to a legitimate tax invoice.

The Plaintiff’s failure to deduct the input tax amount, which goes against the principle of substantial taxation.

subsection (b) of this section.

E) Also, according to Article 22(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, a business operator’s calculation.

Where a business is not operated under the responsibility of the department, that is, business registration shall be made in the name of another person and the office.

In the case of operating a business, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value of supply in the payable tax amount.

Administrative sanctions are imposed by adding or deducting from the amount of tax refundable; 2. The Gu

Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter referred to as "former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act")

Article 11(1) of the Act ("Act") provides that another person for the purpose of tax evasion or compulsory execution.

Any person who has registered his/her business using his/her name shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won.

The criminal punishment is subject to the criminal punishment by allowing the actual business operator to take action, and ③ the actual business operator’s name.

person who is supplied with goods or services after filing for business registration and is supplied with the tax invoice, the registration number;

to which a tax invoice has been issued by entering the name of the holder of the registration shall be the actual subject of the

the tax invoice proving the transaction phase shall not be disclosed in the tax invoice proving the transaction phase, thereby doing so objectively;

The purpose of the Value-Added Tax Act is to train taxation data by taking the pre-stage tax credit method;

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant’s purchase tax invoice of the instant case is not an input tax amount.

Now, it is difficult to view the imposition of value-added tax as illegal.

F) In addition, an entrepreneur invoked by the Plaintiff is running a business using another person’s business registration.

In the case of the actual business place, the precedent that the business place can be seen as the actual business place under another person.

The head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the actual businessman of the workplace shall also make a self-registration.

with the authority to impose a value-added tax, and the entrepreneur has received a tax invoice from the other party to the transaction.

If the Government fails to submit them within the statutory deadline, the input tax amount for such failure shall be deducted.

The business entity is nonexistent (Supreme Court Decision 87Nu131 delivered on February 23, 198) and the business entity’s name under the name of another person.

Where a tax invoice is issued with a self-registration number entered, whether the input tax amount shall be deducted;

The issue of this case differs from the point of discussion. On the other hand, the plaintiff is invoked.

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du35706 Decided February 18, 2016

(1) A tax invoice shall be issued in advance prior to the time of supply with the intention of early refund of the input tax amount;

barring special circumstances in the section, even if a tax invoice issued prior to the supply date falls under the date of issuance;

The details of transactions shall also be deemed as other entries of the tax invoice, after the time of supply arrives during the taxable period.

Article 60 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act if true

In other words, the above precedents purport that the input tax amount for the transaction should be deducted.

the tax period to which the date of actual production belongs and the tax period to which the date of actual transaction belongs;

, the date of preparation of a part of the requisite entry of the tax invoice is different from the fact of transaction.

If the fact of transactions is verified as recorded in the remainder of the tax invoice, the purchase tax for the said fact of transactions.

amount to be deducted, and therefore a tax invoice prepared after the expiration of the taxable period.

the time of supply, even if the preparation date has been completed retrospectively, the requisite entry

because the input tax amount in this case constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact, the input tax amount in this case

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771 Delivered on November 18, 2004;

This means that the Plaintiff intentionally registers the business of a direct store for the purpose of tax evasion, such as import separation, etc.

this case in which a tax invoice has been issued after being registered in the name of other employees

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiff, the above ruling does not cause a evasion of value-added tax.

To the extent that this authenticity is confirmed, whether or not the facts stated in the tax invoice are false or not;

It is not considered to be "the establishment of a general legal principle that the input tax deduction is allowed, regardless of whether it is."

(c)

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the imposition of additional tax on the registration of title is unlawful

A) Penalty taxes under tax law are paid in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims.

Where a taxpayer violates a tax return, tax liability, etc. prescribed by tax-related Acts without justifiable grounds, tax-related Acts;

taxpayer's intentional and negligent acts are not considered as administrative sanctions imposed pursuant to such regulations.

On the other hand, it is unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of his duty.

of the parties to the performance of the obligations. The performance of such obligations shall be subject to the

A legitimate resignation that cannot be caused by his/her duty, such as where there is an unreasonable reason to believe that he/she is not responsible for such duty.

Unless otherwise, breach of obligations under tax law should be imposed (Supreme Court Decision 201 April 28, 201).

High Court Decision 2010Du16622 decided Feb. 1, 200

B) Article 22(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides for the following:

As to the Plaintiff, the Value-Added Tax Act (Act No. 12167, Jan. 1, 2014) amended as of January 1, 2014

section 60(1)2 of the revised Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Value-Added Tax Act")

Business registration under Article 8 in the name of another person prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or under the name of another person;

Where it is confirmed that a business is conducted by making use of business registration under Article 8, such another person's name.

Amount of supply from the date of commencement of the business to the date immediately preceding the date of confirmation of actual business;

The name of another person who is subject to regulation under the former Value-Added Tax Act by stipulating "amount calculated by multiplying the total amount by one percent".

A business operator under Article 8 under the name of another person together with his/her business registration under Article 8;

The plaintiff newly included "use of registration", and the head office from January 2008 to January 201, 2013

Corporation shall be registered under the name of the plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff only for the business of this case.

Article 22 (1) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to an act of business registration under his/her employee's name.

not an act of making a registration under section 5 in the name of another person prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Article 60 (1) 2 (latter part) of the revised Value-Added Tax Act shall be governed by Article 8 in the name of another person.

The defendant's imposition of additional tax on the registration of false name because the defendant's act of using a business registration is "the act of using

The assertion that it should be revoked as an illegal disposition made in violation of the principle of non-sufficiency in tax statutes.

section 3.

C) The Plaintiff, in full view of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 through 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

business registration shall be made in the name of the head of the branch after an employee with excellent results has been issued as a branch of the direct branch;

The fact that the value-added tax was reported to an individual workplace, and the person recommended to be promoted to a direct control store is recommended.

B. The decision-making on major issues, such as the execution of a budget bill, shall obtain final approval from the management of the plaintiff company.

bB, working as the representative director of the plaintiff, with respect to the workplace of this case

A plaintiff company, the head office of which is the main office for overall business activities, such as revenue management, budget bill management, personnel management, etc.

A de facto branch (affiliated) controlled by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s name of the individual business entity

his/her business registration shall be subject to external audit if the sales amount exceeds a certain amount.

Due to certain control for processing, revenue, income, etc. in the name of multiple business operators.

The purpose of distribution was to distribute, and the income amount of the direct store in the return of value-added tax was 70% before and after

report and the remainder are known to be omitted, and by a personnel order of the plaintiff

ccc. dd. working for a branch office under its own name at the request of the head office.

only one copy has been working as a branch after the completion of the business registration for the business of the principal.

the principal’s payment provision, and the principal’s payment of the principal’s

It has been paid from the revenue amount generated from the business, but business registration has been made in the name of the principal.

(2) The plaintiff's actual representation of the plaintiff's

e, the winner, is an employee appointed as a branch head in practice for the convenience of management by the plaintiff.

the head of each branch office has registered its business under his personal name and filed a tax return, and each branch office is the actual head office.

The head of each branch office who received benefits from the beginning and received income tax under the name of the individual business entity and did not dispose of the expenses

The confirmation that the content is a total of KRW 1,781,713,388 from 2008 to 2011.

(2) The plaintiff's office and the director's office and the director's office and the director's office

gg (State) Bobling point guidance dated October 1, 2007 between fff and fff for the registration of business;

Recognizing the fact that the plaintiff prepared a summary, according to the above fact of recognition, the plaintiff left the workplace of this case.

of this case, the income amount and income amount of this case shall be distributed, and a part of the income amount of the

It can be known that the company has been operating after business registration in the name of the plaintiff's employee with the intention to report.

(c)

D) In addition, the business that the plaintiff has registered as a business under the name of another person is established by the actual business operator.

For each head, business registration is made under another's name, and "business registration is made under another's name."

'act of employment' means an act of employment with a single or multiple names on a part of the business establishment.

The plaintiff's act in this case means a business operator under another person's name.

It is alleged that it constitutes a "act of using registration", but it uses the registration of a business operator in another person's name.

An act of running a business by using the business registration of another person already registered.

It is reasonable to see that it means the case, and in particular, the plaintiff as to the principal office as stated in this case.

A business shall be conducted in the name of the employee for the instant workplace after business registration was made under the name of the employee.

in the case of operating a business by filing a self-registration, the business actually owned by the Plaintiff

When only the name of business operator is placed in the name of the employees while running the business.

The subject of business registration is the plaintiff, which is the "act of making business registration in the name of another person".

Since it is apparent that the defendant's imposition of additional tax on the registration of the name of the plaintiff is legitimate.

3) Whether the imposition of unfair underreporting tax is unlawful

A) Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201)

(2) Paragraph (2) shall apply to an under-reported portion of such under-reported portion of tax in an unjust manner.

Article 47-3(3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that penalty taxes for unfair underreporting shall be imposed.

According to delegation under paragraph (2), the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012)

section 27(2) of the Act provides that "the taxpayer shall calculate the tax base or amount of national tax in an unjust manner."

on the basis of the concealment or concealment of all or part of the facilities which are the basis of the

(1) Preparation of double books, etc. shall be made in a false book;

Records, (2) Preparation of false certification or false document, (3) Receipt of false certification, and (4) Accounting books and records.

5 Destruction of property, 5 Concealment of income, profit, act, fabrication or concealment of transaction, 6 Other national taxes

It is defined as fraudulent and other illegal acts to evade or receive refund or deduction.

Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

In full view of the language and text of each subparagraph and the legal nature of the penalty tax for underreporting, the former Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 47-3 (2) The reason why the penalty tax is to be imposed in the case of an unjust underreporting shall be the table of national tax assessment.

a person who conceals or disguises all or part of the facts that constitute the basis for calculating the amount of tax or

Inasmuch as the imposition and collection of taxes are impossible or considerably difficult, the person liable for duty payment is the person liable for duty payment

General departments that are not subject to ‘unfair methods' in order to induce the actual return of tax base;

It is intended to impose more additional tax than that in the case of filing a lawsuit.

The former Framework Act on National Taxes, which stipulates examples of cases that can be seen as ‘unfair methods';

Section 2 of Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree provides that "unfair methods" in subparagraph 6 which can be called the general provisions shall be construed as "unfair methods".

The purpose of national tax evasion is to ensure that the purpose of national tax evasion, etc. is necessary.

Article 47-3 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is a requirement for an unfair underreporting additional tax

underreporting the tax base by means of national tax, which makes it difficult to find out the taxation requirements of national tax;

or fraudulent acts, such as writing false facts, undermining the tax base by such active acts

underreporting, such as the avoidance of cumulative tax rates and the application of the provisions on losses brought forward;

It should be viewed that the purpose of tax evasion was derived from the purpose of tax evasion (Supreme Court Decision 201 November 28, 2013).

[See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12362]

B) “Fraud or other unlawful act” in the crime of tax evasion stipulated in Article 3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

acts which are deemed to be unfair by social norms, such as making it possible to evade taxes;

A deceptive scheme or other unlawful act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes;

report under tax law without accompanying any other act; or

It does not constitute a false declaration, but it does not constitute a non-declaration or non-declaration of taxable objects.

In addition to filing a sub-report, the exchange and return of means of payment, such as false bookkeeping, check, etc., several acts;

the circumstances showing the intention of active concealment, such as the repeated use of the borrowed account;

In the case of surplus, it may be deemed that the imposition and collection of taxes is impossible or remarkably difficult.

(b) the following added value-added tax are not issued with the intent to evade value-added tax;

In filing a final tax return, the sales are omitted intentionally in the report or borrowed the name of another person;

Establishment of a disguised business entity and distribution of sales may result in the occurrence of active concealment.

See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13345 Decided March 24, 201 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1345, Mar. 24, 201).

C) The plaintiff shall enter the registration number of the person to whom the business registration number registered in the name of his employee is given.

Upon receipt of the tax invoice of this case, the Plaintiff is an employee of the direct management store of the instant place of business

Any passive act done under the name of business registration in and of itself by improper means.

No return may be deemed to be an under-reported return, and the value-added tax is lawfully imposed on the basis of the instant business establishment.

Unless reported and paid, the tax authority on value-added tax established by the tax transaction in the workplace of this case

It argues that the exercise of the right of imposition and collection would not interfere with the exercise of the right of imposition and collection. However, this paper examined the above 2.A.

As seen above, an individual employee after the Plaintiff issued an outstanding employee to the head of a branch office directly operated by the Plaintiff.

The normal guidance between the business operator who has registered his/her name after business registration and disguisedly registered his/her name;

as if there was a pre-transaction, the name of the personal business owner in whose name the contract was entered, as above;

tax return, and the tax invoice submitted in the essential form at the time of the declaration of value-added tax;

No list of tax invoices shall be entered in the balance sheet as if the Plaintiff’s transaction was a transaction by an individual entrepreneur.

Plaintiff at various tax returns such as value added tax, other corporate tax, global income tax, etc.

account books as if the transaction was conducted by an individual entrepreneur, and the account books and records for reporting to the relevant tax office;

Double account books, such as keeping account books showing the income of the business place of this case.

in full view of the fact that the plaintiff prepared and managed the plan, the plaintiff's active intent to conceal and tax the plan;

It is reasonable to see that the excessive collection has been made impossible or remarkably difficult.

D) Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 10 and 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, May 2, 2013.

The Daejeon Regional Tax Office Deliberation Committee for the Investigation of Tax Offenses

An accounting program of the head office after being registered as an individual business operator under the name of the employee.

4,704,00

The value-added tax was evaded by omitting the source's revenue amount, which was fraudulent or fraudulent under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; or

The defendant who makes a notification disposition on the ground that it constitutes a tax evasion by any other unlawful act.

The plaintiff has notified the notice to him, and the plaintiff has raised a particular objection to the notice.

Without being required to do so, KRW 235,113,00 shall be recognized as having paid KRW 235,113,00 on May 22, 2013.

In fact, the Plaintiff, while operating the instant place of business, has distributed revenue and directly operated it.

If business registration is made by omitting part of the revenue amount and under the name of the road staff;

or concealed income, profits, transactions, etc. by preparing double books and distributing sales;

The above is the evasion of the obligation to pay taxes, such as value added tax on the tax invoice by the State.

2. An unjust manner made under the awareness that the reduction would result in a decrease in tax revenues;

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this part is without merit.

4) Whether the exclusion period has expired

A) Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is a national tax by a taxpayer’s fraudulent or other unlawful act.

If the national tax is evaded, refunded, or deducted, the exclusion period for imposition may be imposed on the date on which the national tax can be imposed.

10 years, on the one hand (subparagraph 1), a taxpayer shall deliver a tax base return by the statutory due date of return.

(2) If any national tax is not assessed, seven years (paragraph (2) from the date on which the national tax is assessable; or

5 years from the date on which the national tax may be assessed, if such

The legislative intent of Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is the tax law relationship.

For prompt determination, in principle, the exclusion period of the national tax imposition right shall be five years, but shall be national taxes

illegal conduct, such as making it difficult to find a fact of taxation requirements or forging false facts;

In the case of the above, it is not easy for the tax authorities to find that the omission report is not reported.

It is difficult to expect the exercise, and it shall be extended to 10 years of exclusion period for national taxes.

Therefore, "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

(d) means a deceptive scheme or other similar means which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect a tax;

such an affirmative act. Accordingly, even if income is obtained by disguised title, it is a tax

Article 26-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes only on the basis of the fact of false name, if there is no relation to evasion.

The term "Fraud or other unlawful act" as provided in subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1), but this does not constitute a "Fraud or other unlawful act," and

In the name of insolvent person who is not subject to avoidance of rate, distribution of revenue, application of special exemption, and tax payment;

As used, the name cancellation comes from the purpose of tax avoidance, and further, the false trading system is used;

Preparation of a medicine and false payment of the price, false reporting of capital gains tax, false registration or record, false registration,

If an active act, such as preparation and keeping of accounting books, is added, it shall be imposed and collected.

‘Fraud or other unlawful act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to do.’

The Supreme Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7667, Dec. 12, 2013).

B) Recognition by comprehensively taking into account the facts admitted by each of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings

The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff issued business registration for the instant workplace as a branch office:

one employee’s name is for the purpose of tax evasion as seen earlier.

preparation of a false franchise business contract, etc. so as not to discover the fact;

It has been actively engaged in activities such as value-added tax, income tax, and corporate tax return by double account books.

In light of this, the "Fraud" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and other unlawful acts.

Since the exclusion period of value-added tax is 10 years, the exclusion period of value-added tax is 10 years.

This part of the assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.