early 201Chobio 1230 ( December 31, 2012)

The disposition imposing tax after verifying the sales volume and the discretionary processing volume based on the work details confirmed by the plaintiff's place of business and the confirmation of the customer is legitimate.

The main tax imposed on an omission in sales calculated by calculating the sales volume and calculating the unit sales price by the GGG and the unit sales price of the Plaintiff’s workplace is legitimate. The tax imposition disposition imposing penalty tax on a notice of tax payment stating only the total amount of penalty tax without stating the type of and grounds for calculation of penalty tax.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 69 of its Enforcement Decree

2013Guhap51084 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

jAA

1. Gangnam-gu director of the tax office;

September 6, 2013

November 5, 2013

1. The value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010 by the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office

The imposition of the value-added tax for the second year of 2007 shall be revoked in all of the dispositions of the OOO, OOO, 1 year of 2008, OOO, 2 year of 2008, and OOO, 2 year of 2008.

2. On July 1, 2010, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the imposition of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010 and the imposition of the global income tax for the year 2007 shall be revoked in entirety.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 3/5 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Gangnam Tax Office shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant Gangnam Tax Office, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Geumcheon Tax Office

3/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office.

Cheong-gu Office

On July 1, 2010, the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office revokes each imposition of the value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the first half of 2007, OOOO(including additional tax OOOOOO) on the second of 2007, OOO(including additional tax OOOOO) on the second of 2008, OOOO(including additional tax OOOOO) on the first of 2008, 2008, OOOOO(including additional tax) on the second of 2008, and the head of the tax office on the second of 208 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010, OOO(including additional tax OOOOO) on the global income tax for 207, 2008, OOOOO(including additional tax OOOO won) on the global income tax for 208.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since the Plaintiff started the business of the 'BB quantitative uniforms' on May 1, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the two uniforms' in this case, the Plaintiff has operated the two uniforms on the first floor of the CCC 248-7 hotel located in OO-dong from November 30, 2004 to the date of OO-dong.

B. From March 2, 2010 to April 14, 2010, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s business place and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s business place, notified the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff of the relevant value-added tax on the fact that the Plaintiff omitted sales during the above period after confirming the working place and selling unit price of the two-way store of the instant case. On July 1, 2010, the director of the tax office imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax office(including additional tax) and the global income tax office(including additional tax) for the global income tax for the year 2007 and the global income tax for the year 2008.

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 2010, the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax (including the additional tax) on the first half of 2007, OOOOO(including the additional tax OOOO) on the second of 2007, OOO(including the additional tax OOOO) on the first of 2008, OOOO(including the additional tax OOOO) on the first of 2008, and OOO(including the additional tax OO) on the second of 208 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant imposition disposition”).

D. On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 21, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The plaintiff's sales amount calculated by the defendants includes the part of DoD, which is not the plaintiff's sales, but the part of this part should be excluded from the plaintiff's sales amount, and DoD is provided with uniforms processing service from EE and KimF, not with uniforms processing service from the plaintiff. Thus, it is erroneous that the defendants included the part of the double uniforms processing service for Dodddddd's sales amount. ③ The defendants calculated the plaintiff's sales price based on the double uniforms price acquired from the part of the plaintiff's customers, which is erroneous in the calculation method, and the main part of the disposition of this case is unlawful for the same reason.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the part of the disposition imposing penalty tax in this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not fully state the type of penalty tax imposed on the Plaintiff at any place, such as the notice of tax payment, and the basis for calculation thereof.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff is a business operator who manufactures and sells high-class dancing uniforms with entrepreneurs, etc. as major customers at the instant double-class stores located in the first floor of the CCC hotel. The instant double-class stores of this case have served as a foundation EE, factory site KimF, three re-service, and a prison worker.

(2) Upon the termination of the lease agreement with the GG hotel located in the OO-gu OO-dong, rinderD prepared a letter containing the following contents between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff around September 27, 2006 in order to handle merchandise coupons issued previously. From around that time, the Plaintiff operated Hahyang Hahyang Hahyang Hahyang by transferring part of the two uniforms of this case from the Plaintiff.

○ Paragraph 1, the Plaintiff allows DoD to attach H trade name to DoD on the surface and inside the BB store, and understood that H’s products are attached with H trade name, and promised to establish two DoD-owned telephone inside the store.

○ Paragraph 2 Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

In addition, paragraph 3 of this Article, it shall be prescribed as either a co-official O or an OO on the order-making.

○ Paragraph 4, Postal Co., Ltd. pays to the Plaintiff the OOO as security deposit by September 29, 2006. At the time of termination of this contract, the Plaintiff must immediately return 20,000,000 won to Postal Co., Ltd., and Postal Co., Ltd. shall pay Postal Co., Ltd. to Postal Co., Ltd. II.

○ The Plaintiff cannot request DoD to pay taxes and other public charges other than the amount received as a public service. However, when a tax invoice is issued, DoD bears value-added tax.

○ Paragraph 7, the Plaintiff should provide the friendly with a space within the store so that it can conduct business activities without any impediment to the business activities of the friendly.

○ The salesroom occupants of the 9th shop are managed and contacted by the Plaintiff and DoD respectively.

(3) Based on the work log secured at the two-points of this case (Evidence A No. 12-2), the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office confirmed the quantity of the uniforms sold by the Plaintiff to the general customers during the taxable period from 2007 to 2008 as follows, and the quantity of the uniforms supplied by the Plaintiff for processing from the JJ.

Quantity of work (unit: penalty)

Year

the Corporation.

E. L. L. H.

BB

H H

guidance.

BB

H H

guidance.

1, 2007

58

58

16

78

68

146

2, 2007

77

63

140

92

75

167

Sub-committees

135

121

256

170

143

313

1, 2008

83

41

125

95

52

147

2, 2008

108

44

152

119

42

176

Sub-committees

191

85

276

214

94

308

(4) According to the letter (Evidence B No. 5) drawn between the Plaintiff and the J, the director of the tax office of Geumcheon District and the head of the tax office calculated the amount of 1 set up as one set of O or more set of 1 set of O or 1 set of O or more (1 set of 1 set of O or 1 set of 1 set of O or 1 set of 207 from November 2007) the Plaintiff sold to the general customers. The unit price of 1 set of O or more set of 1 set of 1 set of O or 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of O or 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of O or 25 set of the average value, which is the average value.

(5) The head of the Geumcheon Tax Office: (a) deemed that the difference between the Plaintiff’s sales amount calculated based on the quantity and unit price calculated by the following methods and the Plaintiff’s voluntary sales amount reported by the Plaintiff as the omission of sales, and rendered a decision of correction of the value-added tax and global income tax amount with the same content as

Taxation Period

Sales

Reported Sales

The omitted amount of sales

Customer sales

Optional-Processed Sales

guidance.

1, 2007

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

2, 2007

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Sub-committees

OOO

OOO

1, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

2, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Sub-committees

OOO

OOO

OOO

(6) Meanwhile, according to the price list attached to the original unit of the two uniforms of this case, the price of the two uniforms was between OOO and OOO. According to the agreement on the supply of uniforms and other uniforms entered into with KK around June 17, 2008, the price of the two uniforms was set from OO to OOO.

(7) On August 12, 2010, after the completion of the instant tax investigation, KimF registered the business with the trade name of "LLLP" at the same place as the instant two uniforms.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the main tax of the instant disposition

(A) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed, the main tax of the instant disposition by the Defendants is lawful, and the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that part of the portion calculated by the Plaintiff’s sales was issued by the Plaintiff’s tax invoice and credit card sales slip under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the sales of the JJ, and thus it should be excluded from the Plaintiff’s sales. However, in light of the fact that there is no ground to recognize that the tax invoice and credit card sales slip issued under the Plaintiff’s name are the sales of the JJ, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) In addition, the Plaintiff’s transaction claiming that the sales of PostalJ is the Plaintiff’s own sales will issue tax invoices and credit card sales slips to the opposite contractual party and report them to the return period of value added tax.

3) The Plaintiff, upon undergoing the tax investigation, did not have a separate customer management ledger even though the Plaintiff was required to submit the sales account books, etc. several times, and rejected the submission of the sales account books, etc. on the ground that the work slips and the written agreement were discarded, and the outstanding amount was not managed. The head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office, based on the work log secured in the course of the tax investigation without any sales account books or other evidence, ascertaining the volume of the total sales and calculating the unit sales price based on the amount received by sending a written confirmation of transaction details to the credit card user using the two different points of this case,

4) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s two uniforms located on the first floor of the CCC hotel sold high-class dancing uniforms with entrepreneurs, etc. as its major customers, the price list attached to the two uniforms of the instant case is from OO to OOO. In light of the fact that the unit price for two uniforms stipulated in the agreement entered into with KR constitutes either OO nor OOOOO, it is not deemed that the sales unit price for two uniforms calculated by the head of the FOcheon is excessive.

5) According to the letter (Evidence No. 5) written between the Plaintiff and DoD, the Plaintiff and DoJ may acknowledge the fact that the two-way contract was concluded, and DoD also stated that the statement of transactions issued by the Plaintiff to the public official in charge of tax investigation on March 22, 2010 was paid for the two-way order volume, and that it was paid in cash to E twice a month.

6) The Plaintiff voluntarily acknowledged the fact that E, who works at the two-way stores of this case, is the Plaintiff’s employee. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the head of factory KimF is an independent business operator, but in light of the fact that KimF registered his business as a “LL shop” on August 12, 2010 after the completion of the instant tax investigation, and that the Plaintiff stated his KimF as a primary employee at the time of the tax investigation, the KimF cannot be deemed an independent business operator.

(B) The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff submitted the actual sales account book (No. 15) and the work account book (No. 16) in the instant litigation proceeding, the amount of revenue should be assessed after deducting necessary expenses and then deducting the necessary expenses.

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and evidence revealed as follows: ① the Plaintiff was subject to the tax investigation and was required to submit the sales account books, etc. several times by the head of Geumcheon Tax Office; ② there was no separate customer management ledger; ② the Plaintiff refused to submit the sales account books, etc. on the ground that it did not manage outstanding amounts, etc.; ② the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to submit evidence, such as the genuine sales account books, etc. after undergoing the tax investigation and undergoing the tax trial process; ③ the Plaintiff submitted the false account books (Evidence B No. 4) stating less than the actual unit price of the two parts for the purpose of reducing taxes; ④ the Plaintiff’s gross sales amount in 2007 was set at KRW 10,000,000 and KRW 208,000,000,000 were set at KRW 10,000,000,000,000 per each of the above gross sales amount, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the total sales amount was set at KRW 208,0,07,07,00.

(2) Determination on the part of penalty tax disposition of this case

When both a principal tax and a penalty tax are to be imposed based on a single tax payment notice, the relevant tax amount and the basis for calculation of the principal tax shall be stated in the tax payment notice separately; and where multiple types of penalty taxes are to be imposed, the relevant tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof shall be separately stated in the tax payment notice; and as a matter of principle, it is reasonable for the taxpayer to per se know the details of each tax assessment by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation of the penalty tax by different types. As such, where only the total amount of penalty tax is stated without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of the penalty tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1

In light of the above legal principles, the additional tax on the value-added tax (the value-added tax for the first term portion in January 2007, the second term portion in February 2007, the first term portion in January 2008, and the second term portion in February 2008) imposed by the defendant Gangnam-gu Head of the tax office is composed of under-reported additional tax and under-reported additional tax. The additional tax on the global income tax (the amount reverted to the year 2007, the amount reverted to the year 2008) imposed by the defendant Geumcheon-gu Head of the tax office is composed of under-reported additional tax, under-reported additional tax, under-paid additional tax, under-paid additional tax, under-paid tax, and under-paid additional tax, under-paid tax on the tax payment notice received by the plaintiff from the defendants does not contain the type of such additional tax, under-paid tax, under-paid tax payment basis, and under-paid tax on the global income tax for the second term in 2008, under-reported additional tax for the second term of 20000O.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.