Daegu District Court 201Guhap2424 (25 April 2012)

National Tax Service Review Division 201-0026 ( October 13, 2011)

Since the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages, the Plaintiff is obligated to issue a tax invoice.

Since it is reasonable to view that a person who entered into a liquor supply contract with a subcontractor is the plaintiff, and that the consignor bears the rights and duties of the seller only for the plaintiff, the supplier of alcoholic beverages is not the consignor but the plaintiff. Therefore, the disposition of the case that determined that the plaintiff is liable to issue a tax invoice on the premise that the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages is legitimate.

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu1038 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Republic of Korea

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 201Guhap2424 Decided April 25, 2012

September 14, 2012

October 12, 2012

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 imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second term of 2007 for the plaintiff on January 3, 201, KRW 00 for the first term of 2008, KRW 000 for the second term of 2008, KRW 00 for the second term of 2009, KRW 00 for the second term of 2009, KRW 00 for the second term of 2009, and KRW 00 for the first term of 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning this case is as follows: "The first term portion of 207, 2007, 2007 among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "the second term portion of 2007"; "No part of 3, 5" shall be added to "the second term portion of 2007, 2007"; the part of 5, 10 to 14 shall be used as the following 3; 6, 3, and 4, 100, 6, 6, 6, 3, and 4, 100, 100, 6, 6, 100, 6, 6, 3, and 4,000, 420, 420, 20, 3,000, 5

2. The addition;

In addition, "In addition, the plaintiff is merely an attempt to help the authorized AA et al. to be supplied from a direct store by using the plaintiff's wholesale license, and there is no obligation to issue a tax invoice to the authorizedA et al. because there is no fact that the plaintiff supplied liquor to the authorized

3. Parts to be dried;

A non-qualified person without the above recognition and wholesale license is unable to purchase alcoholic beverages from the consignment store. The plaintiff filed a formal application for a summary order of a fine of KRW 10 million imposed on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with respect to the portion of the non-issuance of the tax invoice of this case from March 31, 2009 to June 30, 2010, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million. However, the plaintiff attempted to provide delivery of alcoholic beverages to delivery business operators, such as the authorityA, by using the plaintiff's wholesale license, or the fact that the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to delivery business operators, such as the authorityA, is not a person obliged to issue the tax invoice pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and the plaintiff's appeal is not a person obligated to issue the tax invoice pursuant to the above Value-Added Tax Act, and the plaintiff's appeal is not a person obligated to supply alcoholic beverages to the delivery business operators such as the authority A, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is not a person obligated to pay the tax invoice to the plaintiff 20.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.