Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap51084 ( November 05, 2013)

The disposition imposing tax after verifying the sales volume and the discretionary processing volume based on the work details confirmed by the plaintiff's place of business and the confirmation of the customer is legitimate.

The disposition imposing the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax is legitimate, considering the difference between the total sales amount calculated by calculating the unit sales price and the reported sales amount calculated by the GGG and the unit sales price, based on the details of the work confirmed at the Plaintiff’s workplace.

2013Nu504 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

○ ○

Head of Gangnam District Tax Office and one other

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap50854 decided November 05, 2013

July 23, 2014

September 03, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

Purport of claim, purport of appeal, and scope of trial of this court

1. Purport of claim and appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. On July 1, 2010, the head of Gangnam-gu District Tax Office revoked each of the dispositions imposed by the plaintiff on the plaintiff on January 1, 2007, 207, OO of the value-added tax for 2007, 108, OO of the value-added tax for 2008, 2008, OO of the value-added tax for 2008, and the imposition of the global income tax for 2007 and O of the global income tax for 2008 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2010.

2. Scope of the judgment of this court;

On July 1, 2010, the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office requested revocation of the imposition of additional tax for the first year of value-added tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2007, for the second year of value-added tax (including additional tax) for the first year of 2007, for the second year of 2007, for the first time of value-added tax, for the first time of OO(including additional tax), for the first year of 2008, for the OO(including additional tax) for the second year of 2008, and for the second time of OO(including additional tax) for the second time of 208 against the Plaintiff, each of the above imposition of additional tax for the first time of OO(including additional tax), for the first time of 2007, for the first time, the first instance court dismissed each of the above imposition of additional tax for the Plaintiff(including the above part of the first time of the appeal against the Defendants.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's explanation are as follows: "A" of "A" of Nos. 11, 22, 23, 7, 7, 7, 10, 13, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "A"; "176" of Nos. 5 (the total quantity of supplies under the second half of 2008) as "A"; "OO" of Nos. 11 (the total amount of supplies under the second half of 2008) as "OO"; and "OO" of Nos. 6 as "No. 11 (the total amount of supplies under the second half of 2008)" as "OO", except for the addition following the plaintiff's argument that the court specifically emphasized or unsatisfed by this court, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

PostalA operated a business at the two-tier stores of this case in the name of the Plaintiff due to the lack of business registration. Of the portion calculated by the Defendants, some of the amounts calculated by the Plaintiff’s sales amount is actually the sales amount of Postal Service, and this B and KimCC independently provided Postal Service to Postal Service not by the Plaintiff, but by the Plaintiff. In the disposition of this case, the principal portion in the disposition of this case is erroneous in calculating all of the above parts as the sales amount of the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(4) The evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance and the purport of the Plaintiff’s testimony at this court, namely, ① the Defendants did not issue the instant disposition by means of calculating the Plaintiff’s sales revenue under the Plaintiff’s name, and confirmed the volume of the Plaintiff’s sales and the volume of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff for processing, respectively, on the basis of each of the following: (i) the Plaintiff’s sales and the sales and delivery method secured by the two different points; (ii) the number of the goods sold by the Plaintiff to the general customers and the sales and delivery method of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff were confirmed by using a separate transaction certificate from the general customers who sold their uniforms using credit cards, and (iii) the fact that there was no other evidence that there was an omission of the Plaintiff’s sales and delivery method, such as the Plaintiff’s sales and delivery method, and (iii) the number of goods sold and delivery method, including the Plaintiff’s sales and delivery method, which were written out between the Plaintiff and the 1000-day seller’s respective sales and delivery methods.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim concerning the principal tax of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as to this part, and it is so decided as per Disposition.