Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap8533 ( October 19, 2009)

Review Division 2008-0191 ( December 08, 2008)

The propriety of the disposition of taxation made by converting the purchase omission amount of the restaurant into sales

Since it is confirmed that food materials, etc. have been supplied without receiving a tax invoice on the purchase amount, it is legitimate to convert the purchase amount into sales and convert it into sales.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 9,623,890 for the first term of September 1, 2008, value-added tax of KRW 10,448,660 for the second term of value-added tax of KRW 10,48,60 for the second term of value-added tax of KRW 6,357,570 for the first term of KRW 204 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reason why the court should explain this case is that the "related Acts and subordinate statutes" of the judgment of the court of first instance is "related Acts and subordinate statutes", and the plaintiff's new assertion in the court of first instance is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Matters to be judged additionally;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The △△ Food, as a franchise business entity dealing with Korean food, has opened a franchise restaurant at the cost of opening a certain amount from the franchise owner. The Plaintiff concluded a franchise franchise agreement with △△ Food, and agreed to establish a franchise store in installments each month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited the amount equivalent to KRW 125,00,000 with the account of △△ Food. Accordingly, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax is unlawful for the Plaintiff’s purchase of goods with respect to the money disbursed by the Plaintiff as the cost of opening a franchise store and considering the omitted amount of the return.

B. Determination

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the amount omitted for purchase to △△ food as the cost of opening franchise store, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.