beta
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. The Plaintiff operated C in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, from August 199 to August 2013, and E in the above D from August 2009 to May 2013, respectively.
B. From January 1, 2004, the Plaintiff operated C as a joint project with F (3.33%) and G (3.33%) as a joint project. On the premise that H (30%) and I (30%) and E were operated as a joint project, the Plaintiff divided the amount of income according to the equity ratio of joint project operators from 2004 to the amount of income attributed to the year 2012.
C. As a result of the investigation conducted against the Plaintiff from around September 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted KRW 244,837,272 of cash sales in C, and KRW 713,794,546 of cash sales in E from September 2011 to February 2012, and determined that C and E are joint business operators under the name of C and E, and in substance, they were the sole business operators of the Plaintiff.
On January 2, 2014, the Defendant included the amount of cash sales omission in the tax base of value-added tax, and added the amount of revenue of joint business operators to the Plaintiff, the Defendant imposed the penalty tax for unfair underreporting stipulated in Article 47-3(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as stated in the purport of the claim.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”)
E. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on September 1, 2014.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff did not have committed fraudulent or other active acts other than disguised acts, and thus, the disposition of this case applying the exclusion period of ten years as stipulated in Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is unlawful. 2) The plaintiff did not create double books, and the purpose of destruction of evidence is to evade taxes.