early 201st century 5041 (O26 December 2013)

Song 00 served on the main points of this case, and the disposition of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff had paid the service fees.

The name, resident registration number, and signature of the Service Fee Payment Book were directly made, but the portion of the amount was also deemed to be 00, since the body part of the amount was also deemed to be 00, it is deemed that the Plaintiff paid the Service Fee.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 8 of the Special Consumption Tax Act

2013Guhap14047 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Fixed 0 0

00. Head of tax office

on 13, 2014

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 0,00,000 for the first term portion of 2006 against the Plaintiff on July 4, 201, and each imposition of KRW 0,000,000 for the special consumption tax from March 12, 2006 to June 2006 against the Plaintiff on July 12, 201 and each imposition of KRW 00,000 for the education tax is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff stated that "the date of the disposition of imposition of special consumption tax and education tax was July 2, 201" in the complaint, but this seems to be a clerical error in the statement in Gap evidence 1-2.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter referred to as “instant main shop”) with the trade name of 00:00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 1 - 000 - 1 - 00 -

B. From March 2006 to June 2006, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax, special consumption tax, and education tax by deeming that the Plaintiff paid 00,000,000 won as service charges (hereinafter “instant service charges”).

C. On January 1, 2008, the director of the tax office decided and notified 00 million won of global income tax for the year 2006 on the ground that he reported 48,900,000 won ("00 entertainment taverns", "00,000", "00 entertainment taverns", "00,000, and "00,000 of the main points of this case", and "0,000,000 won") of the income amount including the service fees of this case to the head of the tax office for the reasons that he did not receive the service fees of this case, and the head of the tax office revoked the disposition imposing the above global income tax on 19 May 2008.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the instant service charges were not paid to 00,000. On July 4, 201, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 0,000,000 of value-added tax for the first term of July 4, 2006, KRW 0,000 of special consumption tax for the period from March 2006 to June 2006, and KRW 00,000 of education tax for the period from July 12, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff raised an objection and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 8, 201

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on February 26, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,00,000 to Song 00 as service charges, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not pay the service charges to Song 00 citizens is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) From March 10, 2006, Song 00 prepared and submitted a written confirmation of friendly signature in which the principal’s signature is written to enable the Plaintiff to work at the instant entertainment tavern and use it for verification of receipt of service fees in the ledger of payment of service fees.

2) From March 2006 to June 2006, 2006, the Defendant received service charges of the same amount as follows:

The purpose was to sign the Service Fee Payment Register (hereinafter referred to as the "instant Register").

Meal volunteer service charges (won)

March 4, 2006 100,000

April 6, 2006 800,000

May 6, 2006 200,000

June 5, 2006 800,000

Total 22,900,000

3) The instant register is organized by date, and the name of the recipient of service charges by date, resident, etc.

The book number, amount of service fee, and signature of the recipient are written.

4) The sent00 testified in this Court for the following purposes:

○ himself has been working at the main point of this case, which is not well memory.

○ himself directly made the name, resident registration number, and signature in the instant register, and the amount was not stated.

○ himself does not receive the amount equivalent to the service fees of this case while working at the main point of this case, but was accurately unsatisfyed, but received 200 to 3 million won in an average month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Witness 00's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 13(1) and (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006); Article 13(1) and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19619 of Jul. 21, 2006)

According to Article 48(9) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 1(4) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8138 of Dec. 30, 2006) and Article 2(1)11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19895 of Feb. 28, 2007), in cases where a business operator supplies food and accommodation services or personal services, and enters the service charges of employees who receive the service charges, along with the payment, separately from the payment, into the tax invoice, receipt, credit card sales slip, etc., where it is confirmed that the service charges have been paid to the employees, the service charges shall not be included in the tax base

2) The following facts are acknowledged based on the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings:

The circumstances are as follows: ① the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that Song 00 did not have worked at the instant main point and that the Plaintiff made a false entry in the instant main point; ② Song 00 stated in this Court that the Plaintiff had worked at the instant main point; ② the Song 00 stated in this Court that the portion was 00, but the portion was 00, but the Defendant stated that the portion was 00, and that the portion was 00, and so, it is difficult to believe that the portion was 00, and ③ so long as Song 00 was signed in the instant book to the effect that the Plaintiff was paid the instant service charges, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually paid the instant service charges to Song 00; ④ The Defendant revoked the instant disposition on the ground that it was reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s global income tax on the Yellow 00, working with Song 00, and that the Defendant did not actually paid the service charges to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff did not have any reasonable reasons to deem that the Plaintiff had worked at the instant 00000, as the Plaintiff’s comprehensive service charges.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.