beta
Title
Whether the revocation of a license for comprehensive alcoholic beverage wholesale business is legitimate
Summary
Even if the violation ratio is the most favorable condition to the plaintiff company, the revocation of the license is legitimate because the violation ratio exceeds 10% in all of the remaining taxable period of value added tax except for 202.2 from January 2001 to February 2003.
Related statutes
Article 15 (Suspension of Sale of Liquor Tax Act, etc.
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the revocation of the license for the comprehensive wholesale business to the plaintiff on November 1, 2004.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff obtained a license for comprehensive liquor wholesale business from the Defendant and operated a liquor sales business, etc. at ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○.
B. The defendant, based on the plaintiff's information on the operation of illegal vehicles for transportation of alcoholic beverages and the distribution of non-data, conducted the plaintiff's alcoholic beverage distribution process from April 28, 2004 to June 24, 2004, provided that the plaintiff's 1 so-called 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''' should be supplied to the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' 's ''' 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' 's 's ' 's ' 's ' ' 's ' ' 's 's ' ' 's 's ' ' -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
Table 1 (Unit: million won)
Classification
201
1.
201
2nd class
202
1.
200
2nd class
203
1.
203
2nd class
Total sales amount of alcoholic beverages
5,549
9,111
8,369
5,772
4,559
3,947
Violations
Type
-
Violations
Amount
Unlicensed Trading
485
3,174
2,913
763
571
742
Unmaterial Transactions, etc.
976
2,168
1,093
415
736
722
Processing Sales, etc.
0
29
0
79
89
26
guidance.
1,461
5,371
4,006
1,257
1,396
1,490
Violations Ratio
26.3% by mass
58.9%
47.8%
21.8%
30.6% by mass
37.7%
* Ratio of Violation: Total Amount of Violation / Total Sales Amount of Alcoholic Beverages X 100
[Grounds for Recognition of Facts: Each entry and whole oral argument in Gap 1, 3]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
(1) The defendant calculated the amount of violation of the duty to issue the tax invoice of this case on the basis of the head of the sales office administered by the plaintiff as computerized data. The above data are merely recorded and managed by the plaintiff for each person in charge of alcoholic beverage sales, and it is not recorded in the actual transaction status against the plaintiff's customer. Nevertheless, the defendant misleads the plaintiff as to the actual transaction status and did not undergo a confirmation investigation as to the actual transaction status.
(2) The Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages to the so-called "sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub- re- re- re-sub- re- re-sub- re- re- re- re-
(3) The Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages to ○○○○○ or ○○○○ Branch. The portion of the “○○○○ Branch” on the sales ledger contains the details of alcoholic beverages supplied to Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, together with the details of alcoholic beverages supplied to the many customers in the region ○○○○○○○○○○ Branch, and issued the actual tax invoice by each customer with respect to the supplied alcoholic beverages. In addition, the portion of the “O○ branch” recorded in the sales ledger refers to only the portion of alcoholic beverages paid in cash among the sales of alcoholic beverages, and the portion of the “○○ branch” written the details of alcoholic beverages supplied to the said customer free of charge. Accordingly, it does not relate to the separate sales details other than the sales amount written by each customer. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff does not need to issue a separate tax invoice, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages and issued the tax invoice by mistake that the Plaintiff did not issue it.
(4) The plaintiff did not sell processed goods. The part pointed out by the defendant is erroneous in hearing the plaintiff's statement that "the plaintiff did not trade with the plaintiff" from the former trade name, that is, the former trade name, the transaction partner who was aware of only ○○ Distribution Co., Ltd. in the course of investigating the defendant's business partners.
(5) As between October 21, 2002 and December 13, 2002, the Defendant had already conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff and additionally collected the value-added tax evasion amount from the first period to the second period from 1998 to 2001. The collection of value-added tax evasion amount by conducting a tax investigation again is unlawful, and the disposition of this case issued on the basis of the illegal tax investigation result is also unlawful.
(6) Accordingly, the instant disposition must be revoked.
B. Relevant statutes
[Framework Act on National Taxes]
Article 81-3 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)
(2) Where obvious evidence exists to prove a suspicion of tax evasion, it is necessary to investigate the other party to the transaction, or where errors exist in connection with two or more business years, or other similar cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the tax official shall not conduct a reinvestigation on the same items of taxation and the same taxable period.
[ Liquor Tax Act]
Article 9 (Conditions for License) The head of the competent tax office may, in case where deemed necessary for securing liquor tax revenue in granting a license for manufacture of alcoholic beverages, malt or wort, or for sales business of alcoholic beverages, determine the license term, and the conditions to be observed in manufacture or sales, and those to be observed in manufacture or sales.
Article 15 (Suspension, etc. of Sale of Alcoholic Beverages)
(2) The head of the competent tax office shall, where any person who has obtained a license for alcoholic beverage sales business falls under any of the following subparagraphs, revoke his license:
4. Where the amount of violation of duties to issue the tax invoices under Article 11-2 (1), (2) or (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by taxation period under the Value-Added Tax Act, exceeds 10/100 of the gross sales of alcoholic beverages or the gross purchases of alcoholic beverages;
[The Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004)]
Article 11-2 (Violation, etc. of Duty to Issue Tax Invoice)
(1) Where a person liable to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act fails to deliver it, or makes a false entry in the tax invoice, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding twice the amount of tax calculated by applying
(4) Any person who issues or receives a tax invoice without supplying goods or services under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine not exceeding twice the amount of tax calculated by applying the tax rate of value-added tax to the value
(c) Fact of recognition;
(1) Circumstances of the tax investigation
(A) From October 21, 2002 to December 13, 2001 of the same year, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “previous tax investigation”). As a result, the Plaintiff processed and sold an amount equivalent to KRW 287,053,00 from the first period to the second period of 2001, and found the fact that the amount was omitted in sales (the first processing sales revenue of 2001 is KRW 54,830,000, and the second processing sales revenue of 2001 is KRW 72,265,000,000, and the second processing sales revenue of 2001 is KRW 72,265,000,000, and the Defendant treated the Plaintiff as a bonus from the non-party ○○, a representative director of the Plaintiff, after being included in the Plaintiff’s gross income.
(B) After that, on March 1, 2004, the director of the regional tax office of 00 head of the regional tax office received specific information from the informant on the Internet that the plaintiff is operating the illegal storage, operating illegal alcoholic beverage transportation vehicles, and distributing non-data, and conducted the investigation for confirmation of the fact.
(C) On March 22, 2004 through June 24, 2004, public officials of the ○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○ dong ○○-dong ○○○○ ○○ ○○ dong ○○ ○○ dong ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○) investigated the Plaintiff’s tax investigation again conducted on the Plaintiff from April 28, 204 to June 24 of the same year, on the ground that the Plaintiff without a license or an illegal storage was not an office nor an liquor store, and confirmed that the Plaintiff ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.
(2) As to the preparation of the Director of the Sales Office
(A) From 2001 to 2003, the Plaintiff’s “Director of Electronic Sales” prepared by Nonparty ○, a accounting employee, and Nonparty ○○.
(B) Upon receipt of an order for the supply of alcoholic beverages from a customer in each region, the Plaintiff Company: (a) received alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff; (b) sold them to the Plaintiff Company; and (b) deposited the sales proceeds from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff Company; and (c) recorded the sales status, i.e., the sales status of each customer on the basis of the provision of alcoholic beverages by the relevant customer; and (b) recorded the sales status by the relevant customer. The sales ledger is written in detail by each customer in accordance with the items such as the name of alcoholic beverages, volume, supply value, and deposit details of alcoholic beverages, which are written to the Plaintiff’s sales statement and the sales slip, which were written to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was retired on the grounds that it was difficult for each customer to manage the alcoholic beverages sales account and the sales slip
(3) As to "unlicensed transactions":
(A) The Plaintiff had a local owner owner sell alcoholic beverages to his customer in charge by using his vehicle, but at the time of sale, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff by designating the supplier as the Plaintiff.
(B) The Plaintiff, either separately from the management of a local borrower, or with the name of a local borrower, managed the head of the sales office for the local borrower. According to the head of the sales office as above, the sales office for the local borrower sold alcoholic beverages supplied by the Plaintiff to each customer during the period from 1st to 2nd 2003 is as listed below 2.
Table 2 (Unit: Won)
Beneficiary and Beneficiary and Beneficiary
Management Trade Name
201
1.
201
2nd class
202
1.
202
2nd class
203
1.
203
2nd class
○ ○
○
0
0
0
0
0
548,909,739
○ ○
○ ○
210,007,028
430,488,197
0
0
0
0
○ ○
○ ○
0
27,794,234
64,262,851
67,380,688
9,760,601
1,254,911
○ ○
○○ Scus
15,808,307
78,555,423
81,129,753
86,377,438
92,437,073
8,553,528
South ○
○○○ Scus
69,807,200
18,444,296
0
0
2,601,910
0
○ Kim
○○ Commercial Association, ○○○
14,670,005
2,049,693,945
2,141,736,462
19,438,383
0
0
entrusted ○
entrusted ○
3,583,020
176,890,600
273,541,785
232,665,454
21,167,703
0
○ Kim
○ Kim
20,921,394
134,244,174
141,261,589
130,770,497
121,939,33
0
○ Kim
○ Kim
0
34,101,922
45,428,194
41,220,248
64,192,041
52,604,997
○ ○
○ ○
20,59,492
123,557,740
165,846,811
184,876,840
169,051,543
50,678,550
Total
485,396,446
3,173,770,531
2,913,207,445
762,729,548
571,150,204
742,001,725
(C) As between 2001 and 2003, the Plaintiff withheld the employment income of Kim ○ from among the branch owners, and reported and paid it to the competent tax office.
(D) A branch owner supplied alcoholic beverages on retail by using his own vehicles. A branch owner supplied alcoholic beverages at retail without receiving fixed benefits from the Plaintiff and supplied alcoholic beverages at retail prices plus 5% profits from the shipping price of alcoholic beverages on retail and operated a business by importing the difference. The specific form of business was similar to that of the Plaintiff’s business operator. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not bear workplace medical insurance premiums or national annual wage payments, etc. for the branch owner owner owner as it did not own employees, and did not provide other expenses, such as oil expenses.
(E) On April 20, 2005, the director of the ○○○ Tax Office imposed KRW 40,190,580 on the non-party ○ in the aggregate of the value-added tax for the second period, second period, and first period, 2003, on the premise that the non-party ○ among the non-party ○ among the non-party ○○ among the land owners was an independent business operator. The above heat filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition. The court of first instance (2005Guhap23282 case of the ○ Administrative Court) and the second instance (2006Nu5825 case of the ○○ High Court) ruled that all of them were disqualified.
(4) As to transactions without material
(A) According to the Director General of the Sales Agency, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to customers, such as ○○ Scza from 2001 to 2003, ○○○ Commercial Association, ○○○○○○, and ○○○, where the business registration number is unknown, the Plaintiff filed a sales tax invoice only for part of the sales amount. In addition, according to the above Director General, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages in front of ○○ (General) and the Plaintiff’s trade name, but the Plaintiff did not file a sales tax invoice for the actual sales amount. The amount of the Plaintiff’s failure to file a sales tax invoice is as listed below 3.
Table 3 (Unit: Won)
Customer
1, 2001
201
1, 2002
Second 2002
1, 2003
203
○○ Scus
131,157,946
929,270,242
683,845,728
294,412,667
532,267,39
126,601,865
○ ○ Commercial Association
108,846,717
430,957,312
303,946,074
73,419,671
0
1,555,914
○
0
130,404,549
0
0
0
0
○
4,774,213
28,583,287
29,753,468
19,377,677
29,550,032
3,433,609
○○ ○
0
4,811,105
32,028,740
0
0
0
○ (general)
723,752,242
59,545,320
15,052,256
26,886,611
49,745,704
139,509,439
○
7,603,350
44,431,502
26,295,797
0
0
0
○○ Unemployment (State)
0
402,000
1,797,281
99,461
124,235,538
420,573,486
guidance.
976,134,468
2,168,405,317
1,092,719,344
415,096,087
735,798,613
721,674,313
(B) Around June 2004, Nonparty 1, the actual owner of ○○○○○ and Nonparty 1, the main owner of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s business, was the time limit for the instant tax investigation. In addition, around June 2004, the Plaintiff’s representative director determined that he did not issue a tax invoice on the remainder of the sales indicated in the said table to the Defendant, in addition to the sales of ○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s business, and Nonparty 1, the main owner of ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s business, had been present as a witness in a criminal case against Nonparty ○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and supplied alcoholic beverages at retail upon a request for transportation by the said Kim○○, and had not received a tax invoice.
(C) The sales recorded in the “○○ Unemployment” among the above details of transactions are summarized as follows: (a) in the case where the actual supplier supplied alcoholic beverages to another entrepreneur but the transaction partner cannot be identified; (b) the sales recorded in the “actual(general)” was delivered to the borrower; and (c) the sales recorded in the “actual(general).”
In addition, in the case of "○", "○", "○○", "○○○", and "○○○" among the head of the sales office, in which the registration number of the sales office is unknown, they are actually sold to them, but they cannot issue the sales tax invoice in the future.
(5) Regarding processing sales, etc.
(A) As a result of a comparison investigation into the sales tax invoice reported by the head of the branch office and the Plaintiff, there are records on sales of alcoholic beverages as listed in the table 4 below with regard to ○○ Carbon (○○ Carbon), ○○ Special Trade Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○, as shown in the table 4 below. In addition, according to the head of the branch office, the Plaintiff did not report the purchase tax invoice for the pertinent transaction. In addition, according to the head of the branch office, there was no record on the Plaintiff’s supply of alcoholic beverages to ○○○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○. The above transaction party filed a purchase tax invoice by purchasing alcoholic beverages from
Table 4 (Unit: Won)
Customer
1, 2001
201
1, 2002
Second 2002
1, 2003
203
000. 00. 000
0
0
0
0
0
15,319,00
○ Special Trade (State)
0
0
0
0
47,924,00
0
○○○○○
0
0
0
25,309,000
0
0
○ ○
0
0
0
54,008,000
0
0
○○○○
0
0
0
0
0
10,953,000
○
0
29,025,000
0
0
0
0
○ ○
0
0
0
0
40,933,000
0
guidance.
0
29,025,000
0
79,317,000
8,857,000
26,272,00
(B) On May 2004, the non-party ○○, the representative director of ○○○, and the non-party ○○○○○○’s agent of the business owner of ○○○○○○○○○○○, the business owner of ○○○○○○, the non-party ○○○, and the owner of ○○○○○○, both of the business owners of ○○○○○○○○, and the non-party ○○, who was the business owner of ○○○○○○, was not actually supplied with alcoholic beverages indicated in the above table, but was issued a tax invoice as if the Plaintiff was supplied with such alcoholic beverages.
(C) However, in the course of the investigation on the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the plaintiff and its representative director, the ○○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s representative director of the "○○○○○○○○," which set forth that the plaintiff’s representative director, in the investigation process or the pleading of this case, issued a false sales tax invoice even though there was no actual sales of alcoholic beverages.
(5) According to the details on which the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax base regarding the sales of alcoholic beverages, the total sales amount from the first to the second period from 2001 to the second period from 2003 are as listed in Table 5 below.
Table 5 (Unit: million won)
Classification
201
1.
201
2nd class
202
1.
202
2nd class
203
1.
203
2nd class
Total sales amount of alcoholic beverages
5,549
9,111
8,369
5,772
4,559
3,947
[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence A25, Evidence A26-1, evidence A26-1, evidence A26-1, evidence A30-7, 8, 4, 6-4, 10, 12-20, evidence A1-1, 2, and 3-28-1, 2, and 3-28-28 of evidence A, testimony (Provided, That part which is not believed later) by a witness of the first instance trial and the purport of the whole pleadings, evidence A21, evidence A26-3, 4, 5, and 28-3, 4, and 29 of evidence A29, part of evidence A30-9, and testimony by a witness of the first instance trial shall not be trusted]
D. Determination
(1) Whether the tax investigation is a duplicate investigation
In light of the above facts, the tax investigation conducted on the first and second half years of 2001 is identical to the previous tax investigation, the investigation period, and the investigation subject matter. However, it is reasonable to view that the tax investigation of this case was conducted by specific and reliable information by the informant, and it constitutes a case where there is evident evidence to acknowledge the consultation on tax evasion under Article 81-3 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation. The tax investigation conducted on the first and second years of 2002 from 1 to 2003 differs from the previous tax investigation, so it cannot be deemed as a duplicate investigation.
(2) Whether the Director of the Sales Agency reflects the actual sales status of alcoholic beverages
According to the above facts, the director of the sales office, who is the plaintiff's computerized book, seems to reflect the actual status of the plaintiff's sales office, such as the time when the plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the customer, quantity, and amount in light of its form, accounting staff and the management form of the plaintiff's representative director, and the absence
(3) Unlicensed transactions;
In relation to the sale of alcoholic beverages to a local passenger as indicated in Table 2, whether the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to a local passenger and issued a corresponding tax invoice shall be examined. According to the above facts, it is recognized that a local passenger passenger transport the alcoholic beverages on his/her own account for transport expenses. However, according to the above evidence, it is difficult for a local passenger to deem that a local passenger transport operator obtained a separate additional import from the transportation revenue even if he/she opened a new business partner in addition to the transportation revenue. Considering the circumstances where a local passenger transport operator did not receive a separate subsidy from the Plaintiff, the above transportation revenue (the amount equivalent to 5% of the fixed amount of transportation revenue) appears to have not been significant in terms of consideration for the supply of alcoholic beverages by expanding his/her business partners through his/her business activities, and there is no difference in the details of his/her business activities and income accrued therefrom, and it is difficult for the local passenger to conclude that the local passenger continued to engage in an independent sales business as an independent seller, such as increase or decrease in the sales revenue of the local passenger.
(4) Unmaterial transactions.
(A) The sales of alcoholic beverages as indicated in Table 3 are recorded in the Director of the Korea Sales Agency. The Plaintiff did not report the corresponding sales tax invoice at the time of the Plaintiff’s declaration of the value-added tax base; the sales records of “○○ Unemployment (general)” and “○○○ (general)”, which are recorded in the Director of the Korea Sales Agency, are deemed to be separate from the sales records indicated in other transaction partners’ items; as to the sales of alcoholic beverages to a customer who did not register his/her business, such as “○○”, are deemed to have issued a tax invoice as if the corresponding tax invoice was not issued or sales to other transaction partners were generated; as to the sales of alcoholic beverages to a customer who did not register his/her business, it is deemed that the tax invoice was issued as if the Plaintiff did not issue the corresponding tax invoice or sales to other transaction partners; and as such, it is acknowledged that the sales revenue invoice as the basis for the records of the Director of the Korea Sales Agency and the date of alcoholic beverage sales had already been retired and there is no evidence to issue the corresponding tax invoice or tax invoice.
(B) The Plaintiff asserted that the part of “○○○○” portion of the transaction without authentic documentation was managed not only by the ○○○○○○ Association but also by the ○○○○○○ Association as a single customer for convenience, and that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to each customer in accordance with the details of alcoholic beverages actually supplied. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not disclose the specific transaction partner of the ○○○○○○○○○○○, and that there was no data from the transaction partner who received the Plaintiff’s tax invoice to the tax authorities (see evidence No. 30-9), it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion that the portion of “○○○○” portion of the transaction without authentic documentation was adjusted into the parts provided to mass transaction partners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001; Supreme Court Decision 200 million won out of the total sales revenue amounting to KRW 5.9 billion in total sales revenue amounting to KRW 100 million in total sales revenue amounting to KRW 300 million in total sales revenue amounting to KRW 1.3 billion.
(5) However, examining the ratio of the amount of violation, such as the duty to issue tax invoices indicated in the categories of transaction, such as non-data specified in Table 3, to the total sales amount by the taxable period of value-added tax, exceeds 10/100, excluding only the second period in 2002 as follows.
1st of 2001: 17.6% (976,134,468 won/5,549,000,000 won/X100)
201 Second period: 23.8% (2,168,405, 317 won/9,11,000,000 won/X100)
202. Second period: 13% (1,092,719,344 won/8,369,00,000 won/X100)
Second period of 2002: 7.2% (415,096,0875 Won/5,772,000,000 won X100)
1st of 2003: 16.1% (735,798,613 Won/4,559,000,000 Won10)
203: 18.2% (721,674,313 won/3,947,000,000 won/X100)
On the other hand, as seen earlier, the "total sales amount by taxable period of value-added tax" refers to the Plaintiff's return details of value-added tax base, and there are parts that issued a tax invoice processed or excessive to the other transaction parties because the Plaintiff could not issue the tax invoice to the other transaction parties during the transaction types, such as non-data specified in Table 3 (this part is already included in the total sales amount as above). However, there are parts that are not issued at all, i.e., an omission in sales (the size is not specified), and such omission in sales is not included in the total sales amount reported by the Plaintiff. However, the violation ratio of the duty to issue the tax invoice is the most favorable condition to the Plaintiff company, i.e., a report that contains the total sales amount stated in the table 3 as the most favorable condition to the Plaintiff company, i.e., the total sales amount stated in the table 3, including the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages sales amount).
The first period of 2001: 14.9% [14.9% (976,134,468 +5,549,00,000) X100];
201. Second period: 19.2% [2,168,405, 317 won (2,168,405, 317 won + 9,111,00,000 won) X10];
1. For the first period of 2002: 11.5% [1,092,719,344 won (1,092,719,344 won + 8,369,000 won) X100];
1) For the first period of 2003: 13.9% [735,798,613 won (735,798,613 won + 4,59,000,000) X10];
203. Second period: 15.4% [1,674,313 won (721,674,313 won +3,947,00,000 won) X100];
(6) Ultimately, without considering the size of processing sales, etc., the Plaintiff cannot avoid the revocation of a license for a comprehensive liquor wholesale business pursuant to Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act even with the above violation ratio, and the instant disposition is lawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.