District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-635 ( October 18, 2018)

If a false tax invoice has been issued, it is sufficiently possible to write out only the appearance of the financial transaction in order to conceal such fact.

Since it is an enterprise that obtained a liquor brokerage license as shown by the Plaintiff, not a direct store or franchise store of the Plaintiff, it cannot be a legitimate customer of the Plaintiff.

Article 15 (Disposition, etc. of Suspension of Sale of Liquor)

2018Nu72279 Revocation of revocation of alcoholic beverage sales business license

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap635 Decided October 18, 2018

oly 2019.14

2019.09.04

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of the license for alcoholic beverage sales business to the plaintiff on December 19, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reason why this court is used for this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "the reason for the judgment of the court of the first instance"), except that the ", December 8, 2017," "," No. 2, No. 14 of the judgment of the court of the first instance, "No. 8, 2017," "No. 1, 2017," is as stated in Paragraph 2, No. 2, Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "No. 1, 201).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion and relevant statutes

The reason why this Court is used for this part is that it is identical to the reasons set forth in Section 2-A (b) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Circumstances leading to the investigation of the Plaintiff

A) On May 18, 2017, from May 18, 2017 to July 5, 2017, the Central Regional Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Office”) conducted an investigation of tracking the process of alcoholic beverage distribution (hereinafter referred to as the “instant investigation”) against the Plaintiff from May 18, 2017 to July 5, 2017. Following the investigation of the instant case, the Investigation Office identified that the Plaintiff supplied a total of KRW 3,98,707,968 (supply) to AA, a licensee, who has no license for alcoholic beverage sales business, ** an agent and*** the design and alcoholic beverage sales business operator without the Plaintiff’s license, supplied a tax invoice corresponding to the total of KRW 3,192,146,10 (Supply) supply of alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff, * * * * * * 62 of the supply of alcoholic beverages in the absence of a total of supply amounts of alcoholic beverages supplied to customers, * 168658.7.6.5

B) During the process of the instant investigation, Cho*, the chief of the accounting department of the Plaintiff Company, submitted on May 29, 2017, a written statement concerning the question of the investigating authority as follows: (a) on June 19, 2017, the investigating authority attended the investigation and made a statement with the following contents:

C) During the process of the instant investigation, the ChoBB, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, was present at the Investigation Agency on June 28, 2017 and made a statement with the following contents.

D) During the process of the instant investigation, ** the MediationCC operating an agency submitted to the Investigation Agency on July 6, 2017 a statement with the following content:

E) Meanwhile, May 17, 2017, the day before the investigation of the instant case begins, * is an employee of the AA, and * is attempted to transport alcoholic beverages supplied by the Plaintiff. At the time of such detection, this** was signed by the underwriter in the trading specification stating the items, quantity, etc. of the goods acquired from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s computer program recorded the same details of the goods listed in the said trading specification as ** Market supply details.

2) Circumstances leading to the investigation of AA

A) AA is a company that obtained a liquor brokerage license on May 20, 2014. The Investigative Agency conducted a tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages to A from June 2017 to September 2017, and according to the findings of the investigation, A’s liquor brokerage license was revoked on January 31, 2018.

B) VoluntaryD, a substantial representative of AA, was present at the Investigation Agency on September 5, 2017 and made a statement with the following contents:

C) On August 29, 2017, Kim K, an accounting officer of AA, Kim K, made a statement on the question of the Investigative Agency as follows:

3) Conclusion of contract for transfer of transaction partners between the Plaintiff and AA

A) On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff and AA entered into an agreement on the transfer and takeover of a trading line (hereinafter “instant first transfer agreement”) with the following terms and conditions.

B) On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff and AA concluded a contract for transfer and takeover of a trading line (hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary transfer contract”) which includes the details of the business premium in KRW 400 million. The details of the said contract are as follows.

4) Specific details of the instant disposition

A) The Defendant issued a tax invoice from January 2015 to January 2016, or issued a tax invoice for false entry or processing transactions. Accordingly, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the amount in violation of Article 10(1)1 and (3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act exceeds 10% of the total sales amount as indicated below [Do Table 1].

B) The portion pointed out as the amount of violation of the tax invoice in the above [Attachment 1] is the sum of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not issue the tax invoice even though the Plaintiff supplied an alcoholic beverage to an agency and AA; (b) the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice in excess of the actual details supplied by the Plaintiff (tax invoice issuance); (c) the Plaintiff did not actually engage in any transaction; (d) the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice to the Market * (tax invoice issuance). The details of the above three parts are as shown below by each taxable period.

C) The amount set forth in the table 2 of the above [Attachment 2] is divided into the portion that the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to '** agency' and the portion that supplied alcoholic beverages to 'AA' (the detailed details are as shown in attached Table 1.). However, with respect to the portion that the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to **** the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the agency, *** the plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice (part of the non-issuance) and ② instead of ******* the reason for the disposition (part of the false statement in attached Table 2).

In addition, with respect to the portion of the Plaintiff’s supply of alcoholic beverages to A, ① that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to A, but did not issue a tax invoice (part of the issuance of alcoholic beverages to A) and ② that instead, issued a tax invoice indicating a supply price higher than the actual supply details to the business entity listed in attached Table 3 (part of the false entry in attached Table 3) and ③ that there was no actual transaction ** Market without a tax invoice (the part of the issuance of a tax invoice due to a cause caused by a cause caused by a disaster) are the reasons for the disposition. If the specific details of the above reasons for the disposition are shown in the table, it is as

D) Of the written companies listed in Attached 3. A, part of the Plaintiff is the transaction partner that the Plaintiff acquired from AA through the instant transfer contract, and part of the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s existing transaction partner. Of the instant disposition, the part regarding the business entity listed in Attached 3 is not all the supply value of the tax invoice issued to the business entity listed in Attached 3, but the part exceeding the actual supply value is not considered as the amount in violation (e.g., the Plaintiff’s actual supply of the tax invoice to TPP Co., Ltd. around January 31, 2015, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was KRW 7,682,09,09,000,000 won as the supply value on January 31, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice of KRW 22,084,034, which is equivalent to the difference, to the difference

Attached Form 3. Detailed details of the violation in relation to the recorded company, which are divided into the taxable period and the Customer according to the corresponding part, shall be as shown in Attached Form 3.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence 4, 8, 36, 37, Eul's evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul's evidence 5-2, Eul's evidence 8, 11, 12, 13, Eul's evidence 16-1, 2, Eul's evidence 17 through 22, Eul's evidence 23-1, 24, 25, Eul's evidence 27, Eul's evidence 1, 27, and 28 through 35, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

1) As to the allegation of defects in the tax investigation and * Agency's allegation

The reason why the court uses this part is the same as that set forth in Article 2(c)(1) and (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2)* As to the argument relating to design

*** the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the design****** the person who received the supply of the tax invoice in planning is not a reason for the instant disposition (** the design part is a question that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 6,272,527 to the design around October 2014, and the person who received the supply of alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 79,489,924 to the design around November 2014 *************the tax invoice is issued in planning, and is not a content irrelevant to the instant disposition, which is the issue of the issuance of the tax invoice from January 2015 to January 2016). Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s argument is not relevant as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not.

3) As to the argument related to AA

In full view of all the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s supply of alcoholic beverages to AA as stated above, and the amount equivalent to the value of supply to the company listed in attached Form 3 and ** Market by distributing it to the supply price of the company listed in attached Table 3, as stated in attached Table 3, even though it is possible to fully recognize that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice by allocating it to the company listed in attached Table 3 and * market. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

① Since AA is an alcoholic beverage brokerage business entity that obtained a license as the Plaintiff, not a direct store or franchise store of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was unable to become a legitimate customer. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to A without issuing a tax invoice at the request of AA, the Plaintiff seems to have managed the details of the supply of alcoholic beverages to AA by creating a temporary account called **2 on the sales computer management program.

② During the investigation process of the instant case, Cho** was managed through a provisional account called "A portion of the sales revenue of the Plaintiff Company"*** there was no actual transaction, and some of the sales revenue of the Plaintiff Company was dealt with to the third customer, and the remainder was uP. of the sales revenue to the third customer." The Plaintiff Company stated that ChoB, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, also stated that "A is the actual transaction partner corresponding to the sales tax invoice that has been processed and distributed excessively." This article *** The contents of each statement made by ChoB, as well as the content of each statement made by the Plaintiff Company, are not only coincide with each other, but also the documents ordering the Plaintiff to uP to enter the sales revenue of the TT EM, i.e., the objective data, e., the documents (Evidence No. 19 and 20), and the documents stating the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff, which are supported by the president of the AA's account (Evidence No. 28).

③ During the investigation process of the instant case, the investigating agency compared the computerized DB and the sales account statement, the status of sales claims, and the details of passbooks kept by the Plaintiff, and calculated the amount of the tax invoice. During the investigation process of the instant case, ChoB, the representative director of the Plaintiff company, also recognized all of the amounts of the tax invoices calculated as above.

④ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the pertinent part relating to AA in this case is lawful to issue a tax invoice with a person supplied with a transaction partner of AA as it is not the two stages of supply of alcoholic beverages, but rather the two stages of “Plaintiff ? AA, AA ? A transaction partner”. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is deemed to be merely a content that has no direct relation with the legality of the instant disposition.

The disposition of this case by the Corporation was made on the ground that the tax invoice was issued by the Plaintiff ? AA customer even though the transaction was made on the basis of the Plaintiff ? AA customer. Rather, the disposition of this case was made on the ground that the tax invoice was issued by the Plaintiff ? the existing transaction partner of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff as the transaction partner of the AA acquired by the Plaintiff.

Among the business partners in relation to AA in this case, there is a business partner who the Plaintiff acquired through the instant 1 and 2 transfer contracts, but there is also the Plaintiff’s existing business partners. In addition, in the case of the business entities listed in attached Form 3, it is problematic that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating the amount of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, rather than the issue that the total amount of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff is false, but rather the tax invoice stating the amount of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff was issued in order to divide the supply price of “Plaintiff ?A”. For the same reason, the core of the case is as follows: (a) if a tax invoice stating a more supply price than the actual supply price supplied by the Plaintiff was either published by the companies listed in attached Form 3 or a transaction was conducted even though there was no transaction, * whether there was a concealment of the transaction details between the Plaintiff and AA by issuing the tax invoice * Whether the transaction details was implemented in any way between the Plaintiff and the business entity during the process.

According to the statement made on September 5, 2017, 2017, AA appears to have sold alcoholic beverages supplied by the Plaintiff to the intermediate seller (so-called "so-called "so-called") who is engaged in a non-licensed alcoholic beverage sales business. If there are such circumstances, this part of the Plaintiff's assertion is deemed to have been only a mere assertion of the authenticity among the transaction structure established voluntarily as above. The Plaintiff's assertion is a separate transaction structure (i.e., "Plaintiff ? AA ? A transaction partner" or "Plaintiff ? A transaction partner" or "the plaintiff ? A transaction partner").

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “A was unable to receive timely supply of alcoholic beverages from a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages due to lack of funds,” and that the Plaintiff was partially refunded alcoholic beverages from November 2014 to January 2015. The Plaintiff asserted that “A’s actual operator of AA and its accounting officer’s statement made by Voluntary and its employee KimK is related thereto, and it is an occurrence before the taxable period at issue in this case.” However, in light of the fact that “A was in charge of issuing the Plaintiff’s tax invoice from August 2015 to May 17, 2017, which was immediately before the commencement of the instant investigation, and that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was attempted to transport alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff, and that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been limited to the Plaintiff’s statement during the period from November 2014 to January 15, 2015.

6. If a false tax invoice is issued, it is sufficiently possible to write out only the appearance of financial transaction by using the alcoholic beverage purchase card, etc. to conceal such fact. The plaintiff also supplied alcoholic beverages to **B's payment of the alcoholic beverages after being deposited into the bank account******* the above alcoholic beverage price has been settled ********** the company listed in the [Attachment 3] and * Supermarket's payment of alcoholic beverage price to the plaintiff by using the alcoholic beverage purchase card, etc., even though the plaintiff has paid the alcoholic beverage price to the plaintiff by using the alcoholic beverage purchase card, etc., the reason for the disposition of this case cannot be denied on the sole basis of such circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.