Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap905 (2013.31)

Cho High Court Decision 2009J3552 ( October 11, 2010)

A tax payment notice stating the basis of calculation of additional tax without distinguishing it is unlawful.

The instant disposition based on account deposit details, like the judgment of the court of first instance, is unlawful in the course of imposing penalty tax on the following grounds: (a) legitimate disposition without any problems such as investigation procedures, violation of jurisdiction, etc.; or (b) tax payment notice does not stipulate at all the kinds of penalty tax and grounds for

Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu760 Value-added tax and global income and revocation of disposition

Jeonn

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap905 Decided 31, 2013

2014.04.16

2014.04.30

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff ordering the revocation below shall be revoked.

The imposition of additional tax on the first term portion of 2005 to the first term portion of 2008 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2009 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's value-added tax on June 1, 2009 x value-added tax on the first term portion for 2005 x (Additional tax x including the original 】) 】 the original 】 (Additional tax x including the original x the original x) 】 value-added tax on the first term portion for 2006 x (additional tax x the original x including the original x) x value-added tax x value-added tax on the second term portion for 2006 x the original x (including the original x) 】 amount of value-added tax on the second term portion for 2007 x (including the original x the additional tax) x the original x the original x the original x the additional tax x the original x the amount of value-added tax) 】 the amount of value-added tax on the second term portion for 2007 x the original x the original x the original x the amount of tax.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: (i) the plaintiff asserts that value-added tax may not be levied on the sales price of his/her Seoul place of business on the basis of the sales price calculated including the sales price of his/her Seoul place of business because the Seoul place of business and Chuncheon place of business are separate from those stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; (ii) the sale price of his/her place of business can not be assessed on the basis of the Seoul place of business without any separate statement from those stated in the judgment of the second instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20,000Du130, Apr. 11, 1989; 200,000Du1385, Apr. 1, 200).

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In addition to the value-added tax from the first half to the first half of 2005, the Defendant imposed each additional tax with the value-added tax from the first half of 2005 to the first half of 2008, and each tax notice did not state at all the type of and the basis for calculation of the additional

B. Determination

(1) When a single tax notice imposes both a principal tax and a penalty tax, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof shall be separately stated in the tax notice. In addition, where multiple types of penalty tax are imposed, it is natural that the taxpayer can per se identify the details of each tax disposition by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation thereof by type. As such, in a case where multiple types of penalty tax are imposed while a tax notice clearly stating the types of penalty tax and the basis for calculation thereof, it cannot be exempt from the illegality of the imposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

(2) The defendant, on June 1, 2009, comprehensively taking into account the amount of Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 6-1 through 7, Gap evidence 20-1 through 7, Eul evidence 20-20-1 through 6, and the purport of all pleadings, value-added tax for the first period 】 (additional tax 】 amount 】 original 】 value-added tax 】 value-added tax for the second period 】 for the second period 】 (including additional tax 】 origin 】) 】 Value-added tax for the second period 】 amount for the second period 】 (including additional tax 】) 】 won 】 (including additional tax 】) 】 amount for the second period 】 (2006-year period 】 additional tax 】 amount for the second period 】 (including additional tax) 】 amount for the second period 】 (2007 years 】 amount of value-added tax 】 Value-added tax 】 amount for the second period 】 (2007) 】 (including additional tax) 】

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed for lack of reason. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the disposition imposing the penalty tax of this case is unfair, the cancellation of the disposition imposing the penalty tax of this case is ordered, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of reason.