Jeonju District Court 2007Guhap1832 ( December 08, 2009)

Whether the duty-free oil has been illegally leaked;

Since it is confirmed that the information was illegally leaked on the basis of sales and acceptance certificates presented by the informant, this disposition is legitimate for omitting sales of non-data.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's notice of change in the amount of income in each item of income on the date of each disposition entered in the details of imposition (attached Form 1) shall be revoked, respectively, on each item of income recorded on the notice date of notice of change in the amount of income.

2. Purport of appeal

same as the entry.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (formerly: AA) is a general agent of petroleum for the purpose of oil wholesale business, and HB is the actual operator of the Plaintiff.

B. On January 22, 2006, the director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office received a tax evasion report from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff leaked the duty-free oil and supplied it to the gas station in the middle of the year without issuing a tax invoice. On August 21, 2006, the director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and the gas station in the middle of the city until September 29, 2006, concluded that the Plaintiff omitted sales equivalent to KRW 5,605,40 in total amount of duty-free oil, supply value of KRW 6,032,126,545 in total amount of KRW 5,600 in value, supply value of the gas station, and notified the Defendant

C. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of 145,878,960 won, value-added tax of 13,712,290 won, value-added tax of 203 years (from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply), 203, 361, 361, 364, 205, 205, 364, 205, 205, 207, 364, 205, 365, 205, 207, 365, 204, 205, 205, 207, 365, 204, 205, 205, 365, 204, 205, 3637, 294, 2005, 205, 3637

D. On June 13, 2008, the plaintiff and the YB were convicted of the following criminal facts (the plaintiff: 300,000,000,000 won and 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment: hereinafter referred to as the "relevant criminal case") in the Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Court, 2007, 95, 2007, 116 (Joint) (hereinafter referred to as the "relevant criminal case"). The prosecutor and the YB appealed appealed the above judgment on the ground of unfair sentencing (hereinafter referred to as the "relevant criminal second instance"), and the prosecutor's appeal was partially accepted on November 7, 2008, and the part concerning B was reversed, and thus, the appellate judgment became final and conclusive for 4 years and 100,000,000 won, and the above judgment was withdrawn from 200,1208.1B8.

(1) AB shall:

(A) From March 4, 2003 to June 2, 2005, in collusion with DaD (CCA directors, appointed as the head of the cooperative on June 15, 2005) in order to secure the right to operate a lux gas station instead of taking a lux gas station, which is a gas station of theCC Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “CC”)’s annual oil supply to the actual fishermen. In collusion with new DoD (CCA directors, appointed as the head of the cooperative on June 15, 2005), it would be as if new luxation was supplied to the actual fishermen by using the rule of duty-free delivery instruction that has been distributed from the intermediate recruitment books, such as EE and KimF, and it would be possible to obtain the remaining annual tobacco (attached Form 3 excluding No. 14 to June 24, 202, 205, hereinafter “CC”) other than the list of crimes (hereinafter “Slux 298, 304, 375, 370

(B) Although there was a duty to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act, it is not a total of 127 copies of the tax invoice from April 25, 2003 to May 30, 2005, and it is a fraud or other unlawful act selling the tax-free oil acquired by deceit as shown in paragraph (1) (attached Form 4) to the gas station as shown in the crime list;

1) In the gas stations, including “GG gas stations”, the sales of KRW 204,00 for the first period of 203, the supply value of KRW 221,018,182, and KRW 170,00 for the second period of 203, value of value of KRW 180,245,45 for the second period of 203, value of value-added tax of KRW 22,101,818, value-added tax of KRW 18,024,546 for the second period of 203, value-added tax of KRW 18,024,546, corporate tax of KRW 51,43,862 for the year of 203;

2) In the gas stations, including “GG gas stations,” the amount of value-added tax of KRW 107,872,90 for the first half year of 2004, selling each of KRW 348,400 for the second half year of 2004, value-added tax of KRW 38,347,200 for the second half year of 204, value-added tax of KRW 38,347,200 for the second half year of 2004, corporate tax of KRW 165,79,985 for the business year of 2004;

(iii) sell 1,108,00 fabs, supply value of 1,225,869,091 for a period of January 2005 to the gas stations, such as “HH gas stations,” and evade taxing KRW 122,586,90 for a period of January 2005, corporate tax of 104,750,868 for a year of 2005;

(2) The Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice while selling the Plaintiff’s business duty-free oil as described in paragraph (1)(b) of PostalI with respect to the Plaintiff’s business and evaded the value-added tax and corporate tax.

* Omission of facts of violation of the Petroleum Business Act against the Plaintiff

E. DeB illegally leaked duty-free oil at the military oil reservoir based on the fishermen's instructions on the release of duty-free oil, and sold it to others, while directly transporting it to a third party's store other than the oil reservoir (tax-free oil station) or in fact keeping it in the oil reservoir and the oil station owned by YB.

F. Upon the final and conclusive judgment of the second instance court in the relevant criminal case, on July 3, 2009, the defendant corrected the amount of omission in quarterly sales for each business year on the basis of the above judgment on July 3, 2009, during which the lawsuit in this case was pending, and accordingly, the defendant issued a decision of correction to reduce or increase each amount of income on the basis of the notice of change in income amount as stated in the written claim for each disposition listed in the above (attached Form 1).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-8, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 10, 11, and 12-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 9-1 through 5, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 11-1, 2, 3, and 12, and the purport of whole pleadings]

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

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) Although KimK, who was in charge of the Plaintiff’s transportation of duty-free oil as an employee, informed the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was denied tax-free oil on the basis of “certificate of sale and acquisition,” the said sales and acquisition certificate is not reliable as it was voluntarily prepared by Kim KK. Accordingly, the Defendant’s respective dispositions based on the premise that the Plaintiff was denied tax-free oil.

B) In each of the dispositions in the instant case, the part of the notice of the change in the amount of income was erroneous as a bonus in disposing of the omitted amount as a bonus, which did not deduct the purchase

2) The defendant's assertion

In the second instance of the relevant criminal case, insofar as the fact that HB acquired a total of 4,822,400 square meters of tax-free oil, such as CCTV fraud, and acquired it by deception, it is reasonable to deem that all of them were sold to the gas station operator, etc. during the city unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, in determining the Plaintiff’s quantity of the duty-free oil discharged, it is based on the above 4,822,400 square meters, and calculated by the on-site investigation method in consideration of the data, etc. revealed at the time of the tax investigation, as a result, the Plaintiff’s quantity of the duty-free oil omitted was calculated as stated in the sales omission table (attached Form 5), the Defendant’s disposition based on

B. Determination

1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent disposition of taxation is unlawful disposition, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts in question are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

2) Whether the Plaintiff illegally leaked tax-free oil

In the second instance of the relevant criminal case, the facts of which judgment became final and conclusive after being convicted of the criminal facts that HB, a substantial representative of the plaintiff, obtained by deception 4,822,400 square meters of tax-free oil fromCC and obtained by deception 4,82,400, as shown above. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 7-1 through No. 295, A 10, and No. 11, in the relevant criminal case, HB in the first instance of the relevant criminal case, but the above court rejected all of the arguments, but it can be recognized that HB made a confession of all the above criminal facts at the second instance of the relevant criminal case. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff illegally leaked tax-free oil equivalent to 4,822,400, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff does not have any special reason to reject the recognition of facts of the above judgment. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) As to the assertion that the purchase amount of duty-free oil was not deducted

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence 7, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant disposed of bonus calculated by subtracting the purchase cost of the list of the total income amount adjustment from the omitted sales amount of the list of the total income amount adjustment, which is a supplementary statement of the corporate tax resolution. Thus, the prior plaintiff's assertion on this different premise is without merit.

(iv) the quantity of duty-free oil omitted;

In light of the above 40-year sales order 20-year sales slips 20-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 20-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 20-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 40-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 50-year sales slips 40-year sales slips

5) Sub-committee

The tax base on each of the dispositions of this case is based on the tax base [the amount of the annual oil price, the amount obtained by deception, the market price difference, the purchase price, and the purchase price] stated in the list of crimes prepared by the defendant] (the amount of the annual oil price, the amount obtained by deception, the market price difference, the purchase price] is the same as the amount of the supply quantity stated in the statement of omission of sale (attached Form 5]. As such, the legitimate tax amount of each value-added tax is the same as the amount stated in the item of each notice of tax in the statement of disposition of imposition (attached Form 1), and the tax amount of each corporate tax is the same as the amount stated in the item of each notice of tax disposition (attached Form 1), and the reasonable amount of each notice of change of income is the same as the amount stated in the item of each notice of change of income amount (attached Form 2), and thus, each of the dispositions of this case by the defendant based on this premise is legitimate. The plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed as per Disposition