Cho High Court Decision 2009west1483 (Law No. 9.30, 2009)

corresponding to the processing tax invoice that does not have any actual transaction related to the purchase of gold bullion

In the process of undergoing a tax investigation in relation to the purchase of gold bullion, it constitutes a processing transaction without a real transaction in view of the fact that the purchase tax invoice specifically led to the processing transaction, and the customer files an accusation against the suspicion of issuing the processing tax invoice, etc.

2010Nu15980 global income tax and additional tax and revocation of disposition

Doz.

OO Head of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap30707 decided May 7, 2010

November 24, 2010

January 12, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's preliminary claim against the defendantCC director added in the trial is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the imposition of KRW 318,428,340 on September 1, 2009 is revoked. In the first instance court, the imposition of KRW 82,217,50 on April 2, 2007 by the head of the DefendantCC for the Plaintiff shall be revoked, and in the first instance, the imposition of KRW 82,217,50 on April 2, 2007 by the head of the DefendantCC for the Plaintiff shall be revoked, and in the second instance, the imposition of KRW 82,217,50 on April 2, 200 against the Plaintiff by the head of the DefendantCC for the first instance (the Plaintiff added a preliminary claim to nullify the invalidity of the additional value and the detailed disposition against the head of the DefendantCC for the second instance).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the reasoning of the reasoning of the judgment in this case is as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 27-1, 27-2, Eul evidence No. 30, Eul evidence No. 7, Gap evidence No. 18-1, Gap evidence No. 23 through 25, Gap evidence No. 32, Gap evidence No. 33-5, Gap evidence No. 34-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 35-2, Eul evidence No. 36, Gap evidence No. 1, 37-1, 38-1, 39-1, 39-3, Gap evidence No. 41, 30-2, Gap evidence No. 41, 30-1, 30-1, 39-1, 39-3, and Gap evidence No. 41, 30-2, and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the conjunctive claim against the DefendantCC director

The Plaintiff asserts that the additional detailed disposition of this case is null and void since the Plaintiff was not served with the notice of tax payment related to the additional detailed disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant notice”). According to Article 14 of the Administrative Procedures Act, the service of the written disposition shall be made by means of mail, etc., and shall be made by means of the address, residence, place of business, office, or e-mail address of the person to be served, and the service by means of delivery shall be made by receiving a written confirmation of receipt, and if the person to be served is not present at the place to be served, it shall be made by delivering the document to the office worker or inmate. In addition, if the mail is sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee at that time, barring special circumstances such as return.

In full view of the overall purport of pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 8 and 9, evidence Nos. 10-1, 6, 11, 13 through 15, 16, and 20, DefendantCC chief of the tax office sent the notice of this case to the Plaintiff on April 2, 2007 by registered mail at the Plaintiff’s place of business. On April 18, 2007, the mail carrier received the notice of this case from the person who received the notice of this case at the Plaintiff’s place of business at the Plaintiff’s place of business at the above place of business at the Plaintiff’s place of business at the Plaintiff’s place of business, and did not return the above notice. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of this case on July 23, 2007 with the date of receipt of the notice of this case stated on April 28, 2007, and in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s employee to have acknowledged the above notice of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of invalidity of the additional statement and disposition of this case on the premise that the notice of this case was not delivered to the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB director is dismissed as it is without merit, and the main claim against the defendantCC director is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance on the remainder of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants other than the conjunctive claim against the defendantCC director is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim against the defendantCC director added in the court of first instance are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.