Korea Food Industry Co., Ltd. and 13 others (Attorney Jeong Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Ansan Tax Office

January 18, 1984

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,43,586 against the Plaintiff Korea Food Industry Co., Ltd. on July 31, 1981, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 397,556,691, corporate tax of KRW 68,152,574, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 163,190,253, defense tax of KRW 27,975,471, which exceeds the amount of KRW 163,190,253, and defense tax

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. On July 23, 1981, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 397,556,691, KRW 68,152,574, value-added tax, KRW 11,43,586, corporate tax imposed on Plaintiff Kim Jong-young on the same distribution number, the same Kim Jong-hee, the same Kim Jong-si, the same Kim Jong-si, the same Kimyang-si, the same Kimyang-si, the same Kimyang-si, the same Kim Jong-si, the decedent of the same Kim Jong-young, and the same Kim Jong-si, the deceased Kim Jong-si, the decedent of the same Kim Jong-young, the deceased Kim Jong-k, the decedent of the same Kim Jong-young, the deceased Kim Jong-k and the deceased Kim

3. Of the litigation costs, one of the two minutes occurs between the plaintiff Korea Food Industry Corporation and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder between the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 397,556,691, the defense tax amounting to KRW 68,152,574, value-added tax amounting to KRW 11,43,586, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff Company on July 31, 1981, shall be revoked. The judgment that the litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant is assessed, and the remaining Plaintiffs are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Determination on the claim of the Plaintiff Korea Food Industry Stock Company

(a) Part of the corporate tax;

7.81: (a) The aggregate amount of tax for the acquisition and sale of 2.5 won and 2.75 won and 17.5 won and 2.5 won and the amount of tax for the above 1.65 won and 30.5 won and 17.65 won and the amount of tax for the above 1.65 won and 2.185 won and 37.65 won and 17.65 won and the amount of tax for the above 2.65 won and 17.65 won and the amount of tax for the business year 7.65 won and 17.85 won and the amount of tax for the above 3.65 won and 17.75 won and the amount of tax for the business year 197.6 won and 47.75 won and the amount of tax for the above 30.65 won and the amount of tax for the business year 197.85 won and the amount of tax for the above 2,860,507 won and 194 won and 7.7.8

The plaintiff company has reported its tax base and tax amount within the above business year and kept the books and other evidential documents as stated in the Corporate Tax Act. According to the above, the defendant's estimation of the tax base and tax amount without any ground despite the loss of 121,075,509 won in the pertinent business year. Since the transfer value of the above land, etc. is 523,637,091 won, the above disposition of imposition by erroneous calculation of transfer margin is unlawful, the above disposition of imposition is unlawful. Thus, the Gap evidence 2-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-2, 3-1, 6-1, 2-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-1, 14-1, 14-1, 14-2, 34, 5-1, 9-2, 9-1, 9-2, 9-1, 9-2, 9-1, 9-2, and 5-1, 9-1, , -2, -4, etc.

However, the defendant should first investigate and determine the income amount for each business year of the plaintiff company, when there is no taxpayer's account book and other documentary evidence, even if there is no other important part or there is no reliability due to false or false entry, so if it is not possible for the plaintiff company to clarify the income amount, in determining the income amount for the business year above of the plaintiff company, the defendant should first investigate the account book and documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff company and determine the tax base and tax amount, and if it is deemed that the account book and documentary evidence are insufficient or inappropriate to determine the income amount, it was impossible to investigate new materials from the plaintiff company and determine the tax base and tax amount by making it impossible to determine the tax base and tax amount due to such materials, as above, although the defendant should have determined the estimation by applying the standard income rate for the business year above of the plaintiff company as above, and the remaining income amount by making a field investigation determination by applying the income amount for the business year above of the plaintiff company, and it is unlawful to estimate the business income amount on the ground that the account book was not submitted to the defendant.

The following facts are considered as follows: (a) No. 10 No. 10 (payment of value-added tax); (b) No. 11-1 (payment of value-added tax); (c) No. 3 (Calculation of Value-Added Tax); (d) No. 17; and (e) No. 5 (sales Contract) No. 17; and (e) the purport of the pleading is to be taken into account; (b) No. 97 of April 11, 1979; (c) No. 530,00,00 won for sales of the real estate to Non-Party 3 Housing Co., Ltd.; and (d) No. 212,00,000,000 won for sales price calculated on July 2 of the same year; (d) No. 265,000,000 won for sales price of the real estate; and (e) No. 9770, May 27, 1979; and (e) No.

B. Value-added tax portion

Since Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11-1, 3, 17 Eul evidence Nos. 5, and 22 without dispute over the establishment thereof, and each content of evidence Nos. 23 of the above Act, the plaintiff company has reported the remaining amount of value-added tax calculated by deducting KRW 4,01-2 site Nos. 4,015 and 582.8 of the above ground building Nos. 1976, 70, 47.7, 977, 967, 40, 97, 967, 40, 97, 97, 406, 97, 97, 506, 50, 197, 506, 197, 196, 197, 196, 196, 306, 196, 196, 306, 196, 407, 197, 3696, 40

As the Plaintiff’s agent sells this case’s land and building subject to value-added tax to Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. on April 11, 1979 KRW 51,90,09,091, the supply price of the above land and building subject to value-added tax is 51,90,09,000, and even if the Plaintiff erred in Article 49-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act at the time of filing a final return on February 1, 1979 and supplies the above land and building together, it is deemed that the supply price of the building is calculated in accordance with the above provision under the above 460,90,291, and the Defendant paid the price of value-added tax at KRW 50,00,000 prior to the reduction of the sale price of the above real estate at KRW 50,700,000,000 for the above 70,0000,000 won for the above land and building, it is unlawful.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s tax base of value added tax for the second period of February 1979 is KRW 61,580,735, including the amount of KRW 51,90,09,091 as well as the amount of KRW 9,671,644 as the amount of other sales recognized by the Plaintiff. Of the other sales, KRW 1,100,000 can be recognized as a fact-finding return during the period for filing a final return without filing a tax return during the preliminary return period even after the preliminary return period for the second period of February 1979. Based on this, when calculating the calculated value added tax and the amount of the additional tax, it is KRW 5,393,433, such as the entry in the separate tax calculation statement, but the Plaintiff already paid KRW 46,171,553 in excess of the amount of the above recognized value added tax for the second period of February 1979. Therefore, the disposition imposing value added tax is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the claim seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition against the secondary tax obligor other than the Plaintiff Korea Food Industry Corporation

On July 23, 1981, the fact that the defendant designated the claimant company as the second taxpayer for the delinquent national taxes stated in the claim against the plaintiff company on the ground that he was the oligopolistic shareholder of the plaintiff company as of the date when the liability to pay this tax was established for the plaintiff company as of July 23, 1981, and the fact that the defendant issued the second taxpayer for the delinquent national taxes stated in the claim against the plaintiff company on the ground that he was the oligopolistic shareholder of the plaintiff company as of the date when the liability to pay this tax was established for the plaintiff company was established is not in dispute between the parties, and according to each content of the evidence Nos. 5-1 (No dispute between the parties, and evidence Nos. 5-2 through 12 (No certified copy of each family register) of the same No. 5-12 (No. 26, 1981, No. 1981, Dec. 26, 1981, the Kim Jong-jin died died, such as the number of the plaintiff's worship, Kim Jong-k, such Kim-k, such Kim-do, such Kim, such like Kim, like Kim.

The plaintiffs' 2nd disposition of notification of the second liability for tax payment against the plaintiff 4 was unlawful since the non-party 1's oligopolistic shareholder of the above 30 company was transferred to the non-party 1's 5's Kim Jong-sung, Kim Jong-sung, 10's 1's 5's 7's 9's 9's 7's 9's 9's 9's 10's 9's 9's 10's 7's 9's 9's 9's 9's 10's 9's 10's 10's 7's 9's 9's 10's 7's 9's 1's 7's 90's 1's 7's 1's 6''''''''''''''''''''''''s 10'''''s 6''''''''''''''''''''s 16'''''''''s 1''''s 7''s 1''''s 1's 7's 1's 's 7's 's 's 1.

However, around July 22, 1981, the Lee Jong-young, who acquired shares from Kim Jong-young, was asked to the effect that the employee belonging to the defendant Kim Jong-young did not acquire the actual shares from the employee belonging to the defendant Kim Jong-young and was not a nominal shareholder, and that the member of the tax office at the time investigated all the status of the property and the type of sales with the fact that the member of the tax office is operating each business, and made a threat as to the tax accountant's report, and without being required by the head of the tax office, it can be acknowledged that the above confirmation document was prepared to the effect that it was not taken over the shares from the non-party Kim Jong-sik as required by the head of the tax office.

Therefore, as of the date when the liability to pay the national tax was established, the total number of the shares owned by the defendant Kim Jong-Sa, such as Kim Jong-Sa, Kim Jong-Sa, plaintiff Kim Jong-Sa, and Kim Jong-Sa, who were designated as the second taxpayer, is 26,250 shares, and the ratio of the total shares to 53,000 shares is 49.5/100, and the above 4 persons

In addition, the defendant notified the payment notice of the corporate tax, etc. to the plaintiff company, which is the principal taxpayer by public notice on July 21, 1981, and notified the second taxpayer by public notice on July 23 of the same year. Thus, the disposition of notification to the principal taxpayer by public notice on the main taxpayer becomes effective on July 31, 1981. Thus, the second taxpayer's notice of payment to the principal taxpayer is issued prior to the legitimate disposition of imposition to the principal taxpayer.

Ultimately, the defendant's notice of payment to the secondary tax obligor is illegal because it was made before a legitimate disposition of imposition against the principal taxpayer is made to a person who is not an oligopolistic shareholder.

3. Thus, the defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,43,586 against the plaintiff Korea Food Industry Corporation on July 31, 1981 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 397,556,691 and KRW 68,152,574 of corporate tax, corporate tax of KRW 163,190,253, defense tax of KRW 27,975,471 shall be revoked illegally. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder shall be without merit. The defendant's claim of this case shall be dismissed on July 23, 1981 as well as the remaining part of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 163,190,253 and KRW 27,975,471 of corporate tax of KRW 397,59,586, corporate tax of KRW 397,584, corporate tax of KRW 397,500,00.

February 22, 1984

Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-dam