Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap50101 ( October 08, 2014)

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirements exists.

The data on the current sales status on which the revenue amount was based shall be deducted from the revenue amount as a result of the errors or errors in calculation.

Article 16 (Ground Taxation)

2014Nu68722 The revocation of the disposition of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax

Gangwon A

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap50101 decided October 8, 2014

July 23, 2015

September 3, 2015

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

Of the imposition of the global income tax on September 3, 2012 by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2012, the part exceeding the OO members shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 9/100 out of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2012 by OOO (including additional taxes) of global income tax in 2009 and OO (including additional taxes) of global income tax in 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as the second-class 3 to 15, the second-class 3 to 15). Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for partial contents as follows. This Court's explanation is citing it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (see Articles 16 through 17, 18, and 22).

(2) The main part shall be the part

The "total amount of No. 4 of the Judgment of the first instance court" shall be deemed as "the total amount".

○○ Judgment No. 6 of the first instance court's 17 of the second table "Rabk" is the part "Rabrate" of the second table.

○ The part "as a director of the marketing team" in Part 19 of the second Table of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance is raised as "as a director of the marketing team".

○ Parts 11 to 17 of the 16th judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

(B) After July 4, 2012, prior to recognizing that the Plaintiff’s attitude as the Plaintiff’s total sales amount of “TM sales status” was the Plaintiff’s revenue amount, the instant case was prepared to verify the relationship between the consultation performance and sales amount. The head of the consulting office determined a discount amount at the time of cash payment, and the head of the consulting office decided to adjust the amount of cash sales, and the head of the consulting office stated that the current status of TM sales was in violation of the principle of the Plaintiff’s gross sales amount in light of the following: (a) the Seoul regional tax office’s investigation team’s prior to recognizing that the total sales amount of “TM sales status” was the Plaintiff’s revenue amount; (b) the current status of TM sales was in violation of the principle of the Plaintiff’s gross sales amount; (c) the current status of TM sales was in violation of the principle of the Plaintiff’s gross sales amount.

(C) However, considering the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as a result of the verification of Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 11, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 of this Court's evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the sales status in August 2009 (Evidence No. 5) stated that the total amount of "OO" is included as "OO" if the sales amount of four specialized departments is added to "OO", while the total amount of four specialized departments was stated as "OO", the four specialized departments were stated as "OOO" and "OB" were stated as "OO", and the total sales amount of Eul was not set out as "OB" in the original file of No. 5, and the total sales amount of "OB" was not set out as "OB" for each specific specialized department.

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts: ① there is little possibility of error in setting a box to automatically calculate the aggregate amount of each item on the EX files; ② The verification result of the original EX files is not set, ② the EE prepares ‘TM sales status' by asking the entire amount of each item and the total amount before the phone from the rightB; ③ there is a possibility of error in the number in the process of calculating the total amount of each item, ③ the above EB is likely to have committed an error in calculating the total amount of each item, ③ the above evidence No. 5 (Sales Status in September 2009), and the aggregate amount of each item on Nov. 2, 2009; and ③ the possibility of error in calculating the total amount of each item on the 209.209.209.209.209.209.209.209.209.209.

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirements is deemed to be the imposing authority. According to the above circumstances, the defendant cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirements on August 8, 2009, September 2009, and November 2009.

Therefore, among the dispositions in this case, the part relating to August 8, 2009, September 2009, and November 2009 should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

Furthermore, examining the legitimate global income tax amount in 2009 calculated by reflecting the error in the part of August 8, 2009, September 2009, and November 2009, the following table is as follows.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition in this case which exceeds the OO's total income tax 2009 among the OO's total income tax 2009 shall be revoked as it is unlawful. As such, the part against the plaintiff falling under the above revoked part is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be partially accepted and the remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.