beta
Text
1. On May 13, 2013, the Defendant imposed each value-added tax on the Plaintiff as indicated in the separate disposition list.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was established and operated for retail, wholesale, and distribution business on May 26, 1998 for the purpose of establishing and operating a warehouse discount store, which is a large retailer (hereinafter “each branch”) in a total of nine domestic areas, including franchis, stores, and mountain, as of December 2013.
B. The Plaintiff was supplied with agricultural products, livestock products, fishery products, and forest products exempt from value-added tax, and prepared food such as water leakage, Kale, brea, breab, breab, etc. (hereinafter “instant food”) at each point and offered them to the selling stand and sold to the customers.
C. On the premise that the Plaintiff’s industrial activities of cooking and selling the instant food (hereinafter “instant industrial activities”) constitute restaurant business, Article 17(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) and Article 62(1)1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24683, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) regarding the value-added tax on the portion of sales from 108 to 1st year 2012.
The tax base was calculated by applying 6/106, which is the constructive input tax deduction rate of the restaurant business prescribed in the item, and the value-added tax was reported and paid.
As a result of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that the instant industrial activity constituted a manufacturing business, and accordingly applied Article 62(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2013, by applying Article 62(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 8, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4-1 to 9, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 7-1 to 9, respectively.