logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.01.12 2014구합8631
부가가치세등부과처분취소
Text

1. On October 22, 2012, the Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of 2006 against the Plaintiffs was 45,218,250 won, and the first term portion of 2007 against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that approximately KRW 1,844,050,000, and approximately KRW 553,870,000 in the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name three times over 134 times in the Plaintiff’s account, and notified the Defendant thereof.

B. On October 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant money was obtained by the Plaintiffs from the sale of oil that was stolen by the same Duducheon Military unit (hereinafter “U.S. Military unit”); (b) imposed the Plaintiffs the value-added tax of 45,218,250 for the second term of 206, value-added tax of 116,118,300 for the second term of 207, value-added tax of 116,118,300 for the second term of 207, value-added tax of 92,82,020 for the second term of 207, value-added tax of 81,371,120 for the first term of 208, value-added tax of 94,819,960 for the second term of 208 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ tax appeal on June 30, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the Defendant’s statements made by C, D, E, and U.S. military investigators F, who are the Defendant’s arguments, and the Plaintiffs’ attitude that did not explain the source of the instant money, the instant money should be deemed to have been proven that it was the revenue accrued from the sale of stolen oil in the U.S. military unit.

Even if the amount of this case is not the oil sales proceeds, the amount of this case appears to be the money received by the plaintiffs for consulting services. The same applies to the supply of consulting services, which is subject to value-added tax. Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion that Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is "business operator" who is obligated to pay value-added tax.

arrow