Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap22832 (O2. 14)

Cho High Court Decision 2009Du3295 (O24, 2010)

The plaintiff continues to engage in the actual business even after the date of closing the business.

Even if part of the amount calculated by the Defendant’s omission in sales as to the business income of the Plaintiff’s workplace is based on the repayment of the outstanding amount or a monetary loan for consumption, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that the Plaintiff continues to engage in the actual business even after the date of

Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu21081 Invalidity of a disposition imposing value-added tax

Section AA

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap22832 decided May 26, 2011

December 20, 2011

February 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The first instance court's decision is revoked the imposition of 00 won of value-added tax for the first term of 2005 against the plaintiff on August 8, 2009, 000 won of value-added tax for the second term of 2005, 000 won of value-added tax for the first term of 2006, 000 won of value-added tax for the second term of 2006, 000 won of value-added tax for the second term of 207, 000 won of value-added tax for the second term of 207, 000 won of value-added tax for the second term of 208, and 000 won of value-added tax for the second term of 208.

The reasons for the court's explanation on this case are as follows: (a) at the court of first instance, the money deposited in the business account of the plaintiff in the BB electrical business place on the day of the report of business closure is doubtful; (b) the plaintiff received the outstanding money before her operation BB electrical or was paid due to personal cash loan (Evidence 14-1 to 54-2). Thus, according to some of the above written confirmations, some of the outstanding amount was repaid at 100 won at one time through 1,000 won at 1,00 won at each time; (c) it seems that the payment of the outstanding amount is considerably different from that of the above written confirmations, and therefore, it is difficult to believe that each corresponding confirmation document is not paid at each business place; and (d) there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for partial repayment of the outstanding amount due to the above written confirmations from the plaintiff's business income even after her operation is based on the above written confirmations, and therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's claim for repayment of the outstanding amount was partially omitted.