Where an objection against the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax has been omitted in the notice of objection against the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax, but the whole purport of objection is stated that the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax are dissatisfied with

If the applicant stated only the above value-added tax by omitting the description of the corporate tax and its tax amount in the objection indication while submitting a written objection against the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and the corporate tax, even though the applicant has explained that it is unreasonable to impose value-added tax and the corporate tax on the grounds of the above objection, it cannot be deemed that the above written objection contains an objection seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and the corporate tax.

Article 55 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 66 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daejeon Plastic Industrial Company

Daejeon director of the tax office

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed from time to time in 1982 as well as from time to time in relation to the detailed defense and the revocation of disposition.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,261,662, value-added tax for the second period of 1980 on May 4, 1982 against the Plaintiff, KRW 801,766, value-added tax for the first period of 1981, KRW 2,206,845, and KRW 6,131,30, and KRW 1,051,084 for the second period of 1982 on June 22, 1982 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff corporation is a company that manufactures and sells plastic products, and the fact that the Defendant imposed a disposition such as the entries in the purport of the claim is not in dispute.

2. First of all, the defendant alleged that the corporate tax of June 22, 1982 among the plaintiff's claims in this case and the part of the claim for cancellation of the detailed and disposition of defense had been erroneous for the peremptory period in the previous trial procedure, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff received the notification of the above disposition and received the notification of the above disposition (the plaintiff also knew that the disposition was made before June 24, 1982, the date of submission of evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 2 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 4), No. 14-1, No. 14-2, and No. 2 (the copy of the official document No. 5), and the whole purport of the pleading.

On May 4, 1982, the Plaintiff imposed value-added tax, such as the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff on May 13, 198, and again filed an objection on June 24 of the same year on June 22, 198. However, the Plaintiff’s objection to the imposition of the above corporate tax and defense tax was raised on June 24, 200. The Plaintiff’s objection to the effect that the calculation of KRW 32,863,575, which is an omission in the sales of the products in claim as a ground for objection, was unreasonable. The Plaintiff’s representative director stated the above corporate tax and defense tax and its tax amount on the ground of omission of legal knowledge, but it stated the above value-added tax only on the ground of omission of sales, especially on the whole purport of the above ground for objection 20.3, the Plaintiff’s objection to the imposition of the above corporate tax and value-added tax should not be deemed to include the Plaintiff’s objection to the imposition of KRW 273,270,5000,000.

Thus, the plaintiff's request for review of the above corporate tax and defense detailed and disposition is erroneous in 60 days from the date of receiving the notification of disposition, which is the peremptory term under Article 55 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and therefore, the claim of this case as to the disposition disposition defective in the peremptory term of the previous trial procedure cannot be dismissed as it is unlawful.

3. Next, we regard the part for which revocation of the above value-added tax imposition is requested.

In full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, 3 (each receipt), and Eul evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 13 (each written resolution), the defendant may recognize the fact that the plaintiff corporation made a decision of value-added tax, such as the statement in the claim for compensation, by making the plaintiff corporation's selling, selling, and omitting sales of each plastic product of the total amount of KRW 16,975,684 out of the second period portion in 1981, which is the sum of KRW 9,720,466 won among the second period portion in 1980, and KRW 6,167,425 won among the first period portion in 1981.

The Plaintiff paid the value-added tax in good faith from the second half to the second half of 1981. The Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s omission of sales amounting to KRW 32,863,575 on the basis of the sales plan, inventory report, and vehicle operation log installed by the Plaintiff while conducting a special investigation into the refund of value-added tax. However, the said sales plan is a sale plan prepared for the purpose of improving sales management and a inventory and delivery date (No. 4-1, 2, and 9-1, 2) according to the sales plan, and the sales plan, which was prepared and used for the purpose of improving the sales management, and a inventory and delivery date (No. 4-1, 2, and 9-1, 2) according to the sales plan. This is merely a document that allocates the expected sales volume per vehicle and manages the products, and it is not possible to consider these documents as the basis for taxation. The Plaintiff corporation purchased and used the raw materials only from the Hanm Chemical Co., Ltd., Ltd., and thus it cannot be easily determined the tax base of the said sales report.

In light of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 (Evidence Nos. 3), 2-2 (Evidence No. 5), 11, 12, and 13, Gap evidence Nos. 3-3 (Evidence No. 7-2), 8 (Resolution No. 7), and 10 (Evidence No. 8), the plaintiff's assertion that was made by coercion No. 1 but the witness No. 4 was insufficient to acknowledge otherwise, and there are no other evidences to prove that the above evidence Nos. 1-2 (Evidence No. 3, No. 5, No. 84, No. 97, No. 41, No. 97, No. 97, No. 47, No. 964, Nov. 1, 200), the defendant's testimony and testimony No. 85, No. 97, No. 97, No.

4. Therefore, since the part of the Plaintiff’s claim of this case’s revocation of corporate tax and detailed defense and disposition are inappropriate from time to time in 1982, it is dismissed. The remaining part of revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)