Suwon District Court 2006Guhap5787 ( November 26, 2008)

National High Court Decision 2005J 3498 (Law No. 14, 2006)

The propriety of the disposition of imposing tax by denying service charges for excessive appropriation of entertainment restaurants

Along with the fact that the cost of service charges in credit card sales seems to be excessive, a lump-sum advance payment to an employee was made, however, there is no evidence to prove that the prepaid payment was not the cost of intangible services provided in addition to the supply of services, and that there is no evidence to prove that the employee withheld the service charges, the service charges are falsely appropriated.

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

1. In accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

A. On October 14, 2004, the Defendant’s disposition of value-added tax, details of global income tax disposition, details of special consumption tax, and details of education tax disposition on each map of each map of each map of the details of the disposition of value-added tax imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on October 14, 2004 (the global income tax for 2001 shall be subject to "re-revision tax amount") shall be revoked that exceeds the “justifiable tax amount” stated in each sheet of

B. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. 70% of the total litigation cost shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

【Claim】

On October 14, 2004, the Defendant revoked each disposition (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition in this case") of the tax amount on each map of the details of disposition of global income tax and education tax (the global income tax for 2001 shall be "re-revision tax amount") stated in the separate sheet of disposition of value-added tax (the Plaintiff shall be the primary purport of the above claim at the court of first instance; the details of the disposition in the separate sheet of value-added tax that the Defendant made against the Plaintiff on October 14, 2004 shall also be 312,53,276 of the total tax amount stated in the separate sheet of disposition of value-added tax and education tax; the amount stated in the separate sheet of disposition of value-added tax and education tax shall be 1,65,959,380 won; the amount stated in the separate sheet of disposition in the separate sheet of disposition in the separate sheet of disposition in the separate sheet of tax and the claimed amount shall be revoked to 312,533,5818,3081 of the claimed amount claimed in separate sheet of tax amount shall be revoked.

【Purpose of Appeal】

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The part against which the decision of the court of first instance has been revoked shall be revoked.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following advanced portions among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

(a) revise the part of the 5th page 9’s primary claim as the ’main claim’;

(b) revise the 'preliminary claim' of No. 10, 17, as the 'preliminary claim'.

(C) On the second day of the trial of the first instance, the part of the "that the defendant has recognized the last 13th place of conduct" (the defendant stated that the service charge is equivalent to 20% of the total turnover on the second day of the trial of the first instance, but he did not have any ground to presume the service charge as equivalent to 20% of the total turnover on the second day of the trial of the court of first instance. However, the plaintiff argued that the service charge in this case reaches 56.5% of the total turnover on the second day of the court of first instance, and that the above statement on the second day of the trial of the defendant, within the scope of his argument, is within the scope of his argument, so the confession has been established, and there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth, and there is no evidence to prove that the confession was due to mistake)", and the part of the 15th 9th d. "Calculation" as to this part, the plaintiff's assertion against this part is accepted

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the first instance shall be modified in accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial.