Daegu District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-21287 (No. 15, 2015)

Cho Jae-chul2014Gu3352 ( December 17, 2014)

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving the transfer to the account of the representative of the corporation.

The burden of proving that the transaction partner's deposit in the representative account of the corporation engaging in the brokerage business is not the sales amount, and if there is no specific increase, it constitutes the sales of the corporation.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu6614

〇〇〇

〇〇세무서장

May 27, 2016

June 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's corporate tax of 159,966,720 won (additional tax) of March 21, 2014 against the plaintiff (" March 26, 2014" stated in the complaint's correction column) that reverts to the plaintiff in 2008.

The imposition of the tax and the imposition of the tax on June 10, 2014 (including additional tax), 112,391,830 won (including additional tax), 9,600,000 won (additional tax) of the corporate tax for 2009, June 13, 2014, each of the imposition of the tax on KRW 1,387,960 (additional tax) for the second year of 2009, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 30, 199, the Plaintiff was a juristic person established for the purpose of feed sales business, etc., and was dissolved on December 1, 2014 pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act.

B. From March 3, 2014 to December 21, 201 of the same month, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff; during the year 2008 and 2009, the Plaintiff supplied to AA for the purpose of raising pigs on ○○○○○○ in 2008; and the amount equivalent to KRW 36,265,00 in 209 (hereinafter “each of the instant prices”) was omitted from filing a sales report; each of the instant prices was included in gross income; the Defendant imposed an additional tax with respect to the amount of KRW 159,966,720 (including KRW 7,307,797,797) for the year 208, including the additional tax for the year 2009, KRW 109, KRW 309, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW 3081, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW 2097,2097.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against each of the instant dispositions with the Tax Tribunal on June 24, 2014 and September 5, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed all of them on December 17, 2014. [Grounds for Recognition]: (i) there is no dispute; (ii) entry in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 1, 2, and 4 through 9 (including each number); and (iii) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the instant payments was made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, a feed manufacturing company, and the Plaintiff paid the price for the purchase of the AAA’s feed according to direct trade between BB and AA in advance to BB according to an arrangement contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and it was paid by the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the representative director of the CCC from AA after the direct trade between BB and AA, and it was not the feed price for the Plaintiff sold to AA. Thus, the Defendant’s each of the instant payments was unlawful by deeming it as

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the pertinent taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts in question cannot be eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

2) In full view of the following circumstances, evidence as seen earlier and evidence Nos. 3-1 through 6, evidence No. 4-1, 2, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 8-2, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 4-1, 2, evidence No. 5-2, and evidence No. 5-1, and evidence No. 5-2, evidence No. 4-1, 2, and evidence No. 5-2, and evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 1, 3-2, and 4-2, each of the above evidence No. 5, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 4-2, and evidence No. 1, 3-1, 3-2, and 4-1, each of the above evidence No.

A) The Plaintiff’s sales type is two types of sales that the Plaintiff purchased feed from the feed manufacturing company BB, and then sells the feed to the livestock farmer in the form of wholesale and retail, or that the livestock farmer in the form of direct trade with BB receives profits by arranging and managing the livestock farmer in the form of wholesale and retail.

B) In the tax investigation conducted by the Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff from March 3, 2014 to December 21, 2009, the Plaintiff’s transaction partner EEE recognized that: (a) with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit from January 3, 2008 to December 2009 into the account in the name of the representative director CCC of the Plaintiff; (b) the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and the amount of KRW 425,343,000,000, excluding KRW 114,657,000, 200 and KRW 630,000,000,000, excluding KRW 26363,634,60,000,000, which was issued by the tax invoice for AA from January 3, 208 to December 209, 366,406,000.

C) According to Article 8 of the Special Agreement on Sales between the Plaintiff and BB (No. 3B No. 1), a farmer who can conduct direct trade between BB is limited to large military goods (AB) or agricultural cooperatives, other cooperatives, and their affiliated organizations. AAA is a small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale small-scale farmers and did not meet the requirements that can become a party to such direct trade contract.

D) The aforementioned EE and BB testified that DD, a director of the KL feed management department in the ○○○○○○ region, had not entered into a direct trade contract between BB and AA in the first instance court, and it seems that there is no direct trade contract between BB and AA.

E) According to the sales status of BB in 2008 and 2009 (Evidence No. 6) of 2009, BB allocated customer numbers to each feed seller, and accordingly arranged monthly sales feed weight, sales feed amount, input amount, and attempted balance. The transaction partner of BB is only the Plaintiff, GG, HH, III, JJ, JJ, KK, KK, and LL, but does not include customer numbers or sales details of AAA.

F) From July 2009 to June 2010, AA was supplied with feed from MM to direct trade via the Plaintiff. The MM issued a tax invoice for the sales price of feed to AA. On the other hand, AA was not issued a tax invoice from October 2008 to June 2009 while it used BB’s feed.

G) The Plaintiff asserts that, among the counter-party to the direct trade contract of BB, HH and III, other than GG, did not prepare a direct trade contract with BB, even if a direct trade contract between AA and BB is not submitted, the Plaintiff should not deny a direct trade contract between AA and BB on the ground that it is not submitted. However, other farms, such as HH and III, such as HH and III, are assigned a customer number from BB, and there exist sales details accordingly, and therefore, AA cannot be deemed as H and III, etc.

H) The Plaintiff asserts that direct trade between BB and AA was arranged and the fee was paid. However, it is not specifically identified which part of the fee received from BB was caused by the arrangement and management of AA.

(i) The Plaintiff alleged that the volume of AAAA was included in the volume of the GG and traded as it failed to meet internal criteria to conduct direct trade with BB, and that the feed price was made bypassing by transferring it to the feed price of the GG. However, it is doubtful whether the above form of transaction was actually made in light of the fact that the FF, working as the operating director of the BB, did not know of the accurate amount of feed that BB traded with the AB, and the Plaintiff testified to the effect that there was no transaction code, and that there was no transaction code, the Plaintiff would be concerned about whether the above form of transaction was actually made. Even if part of the feed supplied by BB to the GG was supplied to the AB, and even if the feed price paid by AB was included in the feed price for the BGB, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s sales, sold the feed price of the GGG as well as the Plaintiff’s direct sales to the AB.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.