Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap31536, 2012.07.19

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3303 ( October 28, 2011)

calculating sales on the basis of money deposited in the bank account is a objectivity on-site investigation method.

(1) The amount of money deposited to the Plaintiff’s bank account is related to the sales of the Plaintiff’s bank account, and the Defendant’s calculation of sales based on this shall be based on objective on-site investigation. The amount up to one million won as security deposit shall not be a arbitrary and unreasonable method of calculating the tax base calculated by classifying the balance as security deposit.

Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu24032 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

KimAAA and two others

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap31536 decided July 19, 2012

February 27, 2013

March 20, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The part of the imposition disposition of value-added tax on April 1, 2010 by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs, which exceeds each tax amount stated in the same list of legitimate tax amounts as stated in the separate sheet of imposition of value-added tax (the Plaintiffs partially reduced the purport of the claim and appeal in this court

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this court's ruling is as follows. The corresponding part 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.

o From the 1st to the 11th (the l. the c. part of the disposition) are as follows:

C. From December 4, 2009 to December 24, 2009, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs, and from 17th 2005 to 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiffs of each value-added tax stated in the separate sheet for imposition disposition in the separate sheet on the following grounds: (a) the amount of transactions between the Plaintiff KimAA and the OO, and the amount of transactions between the Plaintiff KimA and the OO, and the amount of transactions between the Plaintiff KimAA and the OO, and the amount of transactions between the Plaintiff KimAA and the OO, as the amount of income of the Plaintiff’s announcement in the instant case; and (b) on April 1, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify each value-added tax stated in the separate sheet for imposition disposition.

o From 4th to 2th (a) above the third below, the part concerning the plaintiffs' claims 1) are as follows:

Of the amount deposited in OO’s passbook KRW 000, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 000,000, excluding KRW 000,000, which was confirmed to have been deposited by the winners of the instant Institute through a tax investigation, is irrelevant to the sales of the instant Institute. Meanwhile, the Defendant conducted a supplementary survey related to the value-added tax for the second period of February, 2004 by the Plaintiffs, deeming that the amount deposited in OO’s passbook is not related to the sales of the instant Institute, and thus, the amount that exceeds the amount of tax stated in the separate sheet column of tax in the separate sheet of the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of taxation based on the ground that it violates the principle of taxation (the Plaintiffs are deemed to have the said KRW 00 as the sales of the instant Institute, and seek the revocation of only the principal tax excluding the additional tax

o 4th to 5th [the part in paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs' claim] shall be deleted. 3th 6th 6th ) and 2th , and "the plaintiffs" shall be "n't't't'.

o from the 11th day below to the 12th nineth day (d. 3).

o 12 10th 10th 4) Judgment on the third argument is 3) Decision on the second argument.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.