logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 02. 14. 선고 2011누21081 판결
원고는 사업장에 대한 폐업신고일 이후에도 실제 사업을 계속 영위하였음[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap22832 (O2. 14)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 2009Du3295 (O24, 2010)

Title

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

Summary

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

Related statutes

Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cases

2011Nu21081 Invalidity of a disposition imposing value-added tax

Plaintiff and appellant

Section AA

Defendant, Appellant

Head of the Do Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap22832 decided May 26, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 20, 2011

Imposition of Judgment

February 14, 2012

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 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.

Reasons

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.

arrow