The revocation of a license for import alcoholic beverage specialized wholesale business is legitimate.

Since the amount of violation of the Plaintiff’s duty to issue the tax invoice is not less than 100/1,000 of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages by each taxable period, this constitutes grounds for cancellation of license prescribed in the Liquor Tax

2010 Gohap 36886 Revocation of a license for specialized sales business of imported alcoholic beverages

XX Alcoholic Beverages Co., Ltd.

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

June 30, 2011

July 21, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s revocation of the license for the wholesale business of imported alcoholic beverages granted to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on January 10, 1998, and on February 25, 1998, purchased foreign alcoholic beverages from an importer of alcoholic beverages with a license for a specialized sales business of imported alcoholic beverages from the Defendant and engaged in wholesale business.

B. On January 12, 2009, when the defendant newly issued a license for specialized wholesale business of imported alcoholic beverages (hereinafter referred to as the "license of this case") to the plaintiff on January 12, 2009, sold alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller, the above license is revoked."

C. From Apr. 22, 2010 to Jun. 18, 2010, the Defendant conducted a follow-up investigation into the distribution process of alcoholic beverages with respect to the Plaintiff, including violation of the Liquor Tax Act, by making the investigation period from Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2009.

(1) The following table 1 omitted:

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 7 (in the case of documentary evidence with a branch number, including each branch number, unless the branch number is specified), Eul evidence Nos. 2-4 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

(A) The sales of alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed dealer (as the ground of Disposition 1)

First of all, with respect to the fact that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to Gangwon, the GangwonA introduced a customer to the Plaintiff and introduced the transaction partner to the Plaintiff according to a contract under which the Plaintiff would receive a brokerage commission, not directly purchased alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff.

Next, in the course of performing duties as an employee of the Plaintiff’s affiliate, a licensee of alcoholic beverage import business, the Plaintiff’s employee, while engaging in part of the Plaintiff’s business. On June 2008, HB retired from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s accounting employee entered matters related to the business partner of HB in the former account book for the convenience of the business, and entered B as a member of the business, and only stated ebB as a member of the business, and there is no room for the Plaintiff to sell alcoholic beverages directly to EB from 208 to 209.

Ultimately, there is no reason for the first disposition since the Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages directly to the Gangwon-A and YB, a non-licensed dealer.

(B) Violation of the duty to issue the tax invoice (the ground for the second disposition)

The GangwonA only introduced the Plaintiff as a customer of purchase of alcoholic beverages, and thereafter, after the voluntaryB retired, the Plaintiff’s other business employees continued to engage in the previous business activities with the business partner of the B, and as long as the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice by directly delivering alcoholic beverages to each of the above business partners, and paid the price by using a liquor card from each of the above business partners, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff directly engaged in alcoholic beverage transactions with each of the above business partners.

Ultimately, there is no reason for the above disposition, since the plaintiff did not engage in the sale or disguised transaction of non-data, such as the statement of the reason for the disposition No. 2.

(2) Abuse of discretionary power

Even if the grounds for each disposition of this case are recognized, the revocation of the license of this case even though such act did not result in a substantial infringement on the preservation of liquor tax, thereby causing an excessive disadvantage to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to be achieved thereby. Therefore, the disposition of this case is erroneous in the abuse of discretionary power.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From February 25, 1998 to February 25, 1998, the Plaintiff was engaged in the import alcoholic beverage wholesale business with the business place of 00-00, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax as described in the table 2 as follows between the second and the second half of 2008.

(2) The following table 2 omitted:

(2) On April 5, 2010, the Seoul Regional Tax Office had been engaged in the sales of alcoholic beverages at the △△△ 2'O's store (hereinafter referred to as the "O's store") and found several details of payment of alcoholic beverages issued in the name of the Plaintiff during the process of regulating illegal sales of alcoholic beverages at the △△△ 2's store (hereinafter referred to as the "O's store"). It was present at the Seoul Regional Tax Office's report analysis1 and conducted an investigation on June 22, 2010, followed up the fact that the Plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages from the △△△ 2's office without a license and sold them to the △△△ 2's office with no material to sell alcoholic beverages to the △△ 6's office, and the Plaintiff was discovered during the process of purchasing alcoholic beverages from the △△ 2's office's store and selling them to the △△ 6's office's sales of alcoholic beverages to the △△ 2's office's average sales order.

(3) From November 2009 to March 3, 2010, KimDD also operated by OO from around March 3, 2010 to the fact that the Plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages with no material from the Plaintiff without a license for alcoholic beverage sales business; and on May 14, 2010, the Seoul Regional Tax Office was present at the Seoul Regional Tax Office's report analysis1 and was investigated, and only purchased alcoholic beverages with no material (B) in the △△△ corporation's Alcoholic Beverages and MM market (Plaintiff) without receiving the bill of sales and tax invoice. On the settlement date, the employee of △△△ corporation (Plaintiff), who purchased alcoholic beverages with the card and the card with no material from the Plaintiff, made a statement that the Plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages with no material from the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

(4) From July 2009 to October 2010, 2010, the Poste, who served as the Plaintiff’s accounting employee, signed a written confirmation with the following contents, and reversed the purport of the written confirmation at this time, which led to the reversal of the purport of the said written confirmation. In addition, only the Plaintiff was unable to know it at all, and the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the customer and issued the tax invoice lawfully to the customer, and the Plaintiff did not issue a false tax invoice or sell alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed dealer.

(2) The following specifications are omitted:

(5) 원고 경리직원 작성의 '공급가 부가세 현황'에 거래처로 기재된 일부 주점들을 운영한 한FF는 2010. 5. 26.에 이GG은 2010. 6. 7.에, 김HH은 같은 달 14.에, 오KK, 권MM, 김OO은 각 같은 달 16.에, 이PP , 윤QQ, 이RR는 각 같은 달 17.에, 윤SS는 같은 달 18.에 원고 이외의 제3자로부터 주류를 매입하고서 원고의 명의로 된 세금계산서를 교부받았다는 내용의 확인서에 각 서명하였다.

(6) On the other hand, the actual transaction between the transaction partner and the transaction partner described in the "HHBB", which means "L and other (Cheong)", which is a human code, in the column of "business partner" among the contents of "business statement" prepared by the plaintiff's accounting officer for the settlement of accounts related to the issuance of the tax invoice. The actual transaction between the transaction partner and the transaction partner described in the "HHBB", which is a human code, refers to the employee of the plaintiff's representative director, who works as the employee of the plaintiff's director, and retired around June 2008. The transaction amount is described as "0", unlike the case of other transaction partners. If the sum of the sales amount for the above transaction partner entered in the account book prepared by the accounting officer, is adjusted according to the taxable period and the "business partner" column.

(3) Table 3 omitted:

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1. 5 Eul 4 through 6 of the evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 8-2, Eul evidence No. 9-2, Eul 3, 5, 6, 11 through 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

(1) Determination as to the non-existence of the ground for Disposition 1

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that if the tax authority has received a written confirmation from the related persons in the course of conducting a tax investigation, etc., it is difficult to readily deny the value of the evidence of the written confirmation, unless there exist any special circumstances, such as that the written confirmation was forced against the will of the originator, or that it is difficult to consider it as the supporting material for the specific facts due to the lack of the content thereof, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s sales of imported alcoholic beverages equivalent to the amount indicated in the column of “total Sales Amount of Table 3” between the second and second period of the Value-Added Tax period 2008 to the second period of the Value-Added Tax period 2009, against the designated terms of this case. On the other hand, each of the evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence No. 4 against it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s testimony without any further submission of evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff’s testimony and sealing was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff’s representative director’s brokerage contract for the Plaintiff in Seoul for the process of undergoing the relevant investigation at the Seoul regional tax office, and that it was difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s testimony that it was difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to receive the fees from the Plaintiff under the above contract No. 1 on the basis of the average profit ratio of the business parties introduced by Gangwon to the Plaintiff at KRW 500,000.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① The Gangnam made a detailed statement with regard to the details and methods of liquor transactions with the Plaintiff, the settlement procedure for the payment thereof, etc. However, since accounting data, etc. considerably comply with the statements of the Gangwon-do Government, it is difficult for the Gangwon-do Government to readily reject the credibility of the statement made in the process of investigation conducted by the Seoul Regional Tax Office.

② In this Court, PoE stated that it was only signed on the above confirmation to recognize the fact that 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the status of 'the license' without the license' stated in the PoE' document. However, it is reasonable to view that PoE was able to fully understand the meaning of 'the status of 'the non-license' without the license' in relation to the 'the regulation of 'the regulation of 'the alcoholic beverages' listed in the PoE' document without the license' without the proper knowledge of the contents of the confirmation in the process of investigation by the tax authorities is inconsistent with the common sense. On the contrary, it is difficult to find that the Pote' document was forced to be prepared against the intention of the Pote'or's.

③ It is extremely exceptional that the Plaintiff’s accounting officer erroneously stated that the transaction price portion, which is essential elements in arranging transaction details in relation to the issuance of tax invoices, is “0” only for the transaction price portion with respect to a specific transaction partner. Rather, this is to support the probability that the Plaintiff entered the transaction price portion with respect to the actual transaction partner in order to distinguish between the actual transaction partner of alcoholic beverages and the other transaction partner who is to issue the tax invoice from the actual transaction partner.

④ As alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s entry of “business operator with respect to the transaction partner” as it is, in light of the following: (a) even if a pre-employed employee, who is not an employee of the Plaintiff, participated in the Plaintiff’s business activities in XX Korea, and thereby securing some transaction partners for the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff confirmed a person responsible for business activities with respect to each transaction partner; and (c) controls and manages each business partner, and thus, the entry of the pre-employed employee’s account book is contrary to the Plaintiff’s convenience; (d) the change in the Plaintiff’s business employee would rather go against the Plaintiff’s convenience; and (e) it is natural to deem that the change in the Plaintiff’s business employee would not have properly changed and entered the transaction partner’s account book in accordance with the change, for a period of one year after the voluntaryB’s retirement to promote the Plaintiff’s business convenience.

(2) Determination as to the non-existence of the grounds for Disposition 2

According to Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act, where the amount of violation of the duty to issue a tax invoice under Article 10(1), (2), or (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by taxation period under the Value-Added Tax Act is at least 100/1,000 of the total sales of alcoholic beverages or the total purchases of alcoholic beverages, the head of the competent tax office shall revoke the relevant liquor sales business. Articles 16(1) and 9(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that where an entrepreneur supplies goods requiring transfer, he/she shall issue a tax invoice stating the registration number and name or title of the entrepreneur when the goods are delivered, the registration number, the price of the recipient, the value-added tax amount, the date of preparation, etc. of the tax invoice under Article 10(1) and (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, or issues a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying the goods or services.

In other words, according to the facts that the plaintiff returned to the case and had been recognized prior to the second period from 2008 to 2009, the plaintiff sold the imported alcoholic beverages equivalent to the amount stated in the "total Amount of sales" as stated in the "total Amount of 3. of the above Table" to Gangnam and YB, and did not issue a tax invoice according to the supply of each imported alcoholic beverage to them. After that, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating "the person to whom the plaintiff was supplied" to each of the above transaction parties only when the Gangwon and Y sold the imported alcoholic beverages purchased from the plaintiff to other transaction parties. Accordingly, the series of acts committed by the plaintiff constitutes both the case where the tax invoice is not issued and the tax invoice is issued without the supply of goods as provided in Article 10 (1) and (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

According to this, between the second and second years of 2008, the taxable period of value-added tax, the Plaintiff violated the duty to issue a tax invoice by means of free transaction and disguised transaction by each taxable period, shall be the same as the amount indicated in the column of ‘B' in the table of ‘B', and each ratio of violation of the duty to issue a tax invoice to the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages by each of the above taxable periods is the same as the ratio stated in the column of ‘violation of duty to issue' in the table of ‘the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages by each of the above taxable periods. Therefore, the violation amount of the duty to issue each tax invoice during the second period of 2008, the first period of 2009, and the second period of 209 is more than 100/1,000 of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages by each taxable period, and this constitutes a ground for revocation of license under Article 15 (2) 4

Therefore, it is difficult to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(3) Determination of abuse of discretionary power

Article 15(2) of the Liquor Tax Act provides that a license shall be revoked when a licensee of a liquor sales business falls under any of the following subparagraphs. In light of the language, form, etc. of the above provision, the head of the competent tax office must revoke the license in cases where there are grounds for violation of each subparagraph of the above provision, and it is difficult to deem that there is room for discretionary power to revoke the license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12684, Aug. 14, 1992). This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Defendant had discretionary power in revoking the license of this case without any further need to review (On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case was an abuse of discretionary power based on the first disposition. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an abuse of discretionary power by supplying alcoholic beverages to Gangwon and Y who is a non-licensed liquor seller and YB, thereby impairing the distribution order of alcoholic beverages and causing danger to preservation, and that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case’s total amount is less than 3B 96A and 166.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.