The plaintiff did not keep the account books, but made it difficult to find a fact of taxation requirements through non-data transactions.

The Plaintiff did not keep the account books, and made it difficult to find out the fact of taxation requirements through non-data transactions, and filed a report by intentionally omitting only cash sales that are difficult to capture income or income by the tax authorities, which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to find circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff omitted cash sales for other reasons without any purpose to evade taxes, such as concealing income or income or avoiding progressive tax rates.

Article 47-2 (Additional Tax on Non-Filing)

2014Guhap19834 global income and revocation of disposition

Park AA

Head of Mapo Tax Office

October 20, 2015

October 30, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on September 2, 2013, attached Form 2008 to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013 by the former Defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who has been engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of clothes under the trade name of 'O' from January 5, 2009.

B. The Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 2, 2013, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was omitted from filing a sales report on Japan’s currency 000, for which the Plaintiff exported clothing from 2008 to 2011. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 26, 2013, but was dismissed on August 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff merely provided convenience, such as interpretation, to purchase goods in Korea by a foreign buyer, and such an offering of convenience does not include business income under the Income Tax Act. 2) Since there was no act corresponding to a specific type of fraudulent act under the Framework Act on National Taxes, no additional tax should be imposed pursuant to Article 47-3(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s under-reported return did not result in the intended purpose of tax exemption, and there was a justifiable reason for tax exemption.

3) The notice of the instant disposition is unlawful because it is unclear how the amount subject to the penalty tax rate is calculated.

B. Determination

1) 원고가 의류를 제조하거나 구매하여 수출하였는지 여부을 제7 내지 13호증의 각 기재, 증인 ㅁㅁㅁㅁ의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 의류 등을 제조하거나 수입하여 판매하였다고 볼 수 있으므로 이를 전제로 한 이 사건 처분의 적법하다.

① During the process of undergoing a tax investigation, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that he/she manufactured or purchased the following clothing and exported it to Japan (hereinafter referred to as “instant confirmation”). ② From January 9, 2012 to April 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was issued and confirmed a summary order of KRW 000 on January 3, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff exported KRW 000,000, such as Liiiri, to Japan without filing an export declaration with the head of the relevant customs office (Seoulo Court Decision 2013 Goo Court Decision 2000). ③ At the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff submitted the written confirmation (Evidence No. 13), stating the monthly sales records in which the monthly sales records in which the date of deposit, etc. are recorded, and the written order (Evidence No. 13) issued by the Plaintiff at the processing site as indicated in the text.

④ 이 사건 확인서가 원고의 의사에 반하여 강제로 작성되었다고 볼만한 사정이 없다(대법원 1998. 5. 22. 선고 98두2928 판결 참조). ⑤ 증인 ㅁㅁㅁㅁ는 원고가 국내에서 자신이 직접 구매한 물건을 일본으로 보내주면, 원고에게 일정한 수수료를 지급하였다고 증언하였다. 하지만 증인도 원고의 상호가 oo상사라거나 oo상사에서 의류를 제조하였다는 사실을 알지 못한다. 또 증인이 일본에서 추가 주문을 할 경우에는 원고에게 물품 구매를 요청하고, 원고가 물품을 구입한 후 일본에 보내면 증인이 사후에 대금을 원고에게 지급하는 방법을 취하였다고 증언하기도 하였다. 이러한 증언 내용에 비추어 볼 때, 원고가 증인이 국내에서 구매한 물품을 일정한 수수료를 받고 일본으로 보내준 적이 있다거나 원고가 들고 있는 나머지 사정만으로는 이 사건 확인서 기재 내용을 뒤집기 부족하다.

2) As to the imposition of penalty tax

Article 47-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act “reported return of a tax base by unjust means” means underreporting the tax base by an affirmative act, such as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirement of national taxes, and such underreporting arises from the purpose of evading tax, such as evading the progressive tax rate (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12362, Nov. 28, 2013).

In addition to the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 7, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she manufactured or purchased the clothing through the transaction without materials and exported it to Japan, and that he/she did not keep the books, etc. by stating the fact of transaction.

The Plaintiff did not keep the account books, and made it difficult to find a fact of taxation requirements through non-data transactions. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a report by intentionally omitting only cash sales that the tax authority finds it difficult to capture income or income. It is difficult to find out the circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff omitted cash sales for any reason other than the purpose of evading taxes, such as concealing income or income or avoiding progressive tax rates.

The plaintiff's above act constitutes an unlawful act to evade national taxes and thus there is no ground to impose additional tax on the plaintiff or there is a justifiable ground to exempt additional tax.

3) Whether a duty payment notice is lawful

If a national tax is to be collected, a tax payment notice stating the taxable period, item, amount of national tax, grounds for its calculation, deadline for payment and place of payment shall be issued (Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act).

According to the evidence Nos. 3 through 6, since each annual tax notice may recognize the fact that the amount subject to imposition, tax rate, and amount of tax are stated by additional tax, it is difficult to deem that there are any defects in the tax notice of this case. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that he did not present the process of calculating the amount subject to imposition of additional tax rate. However, since the amount subject to imposition of additional tax rate was calculated by law, it is difficult to deem the disposition of this case unlawful solely on the ground that he did not present the process of calculating the amount

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.