supplying goods (processed meat) to the related company constitutes the supply of goods.

Value-added tax, as a matter of principle, is paid at each workplace, a person who is not a unit taxable business operator should be registered as a business operator at each workplace. It is reasonable to view that sales related to the entrusted processing transaction in this case are subject to value-added tax as a supply of goods

Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap6699 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Korea*

*The Director of the Tax Office

April 4, 2017

April 18, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of value-added tax on December 1, 2015 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on each of the corresponding monetary amounts listed in the attached Form Claim List shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 2006, the Plaintiff operated a business, including a fish processing business, after registering the business as a trade name. On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the trade name of ** * * * * * * dd, and the place of business into the mountain road in the Si of Gun, and closed * * Mad on February 29, 2016.

나. 주식회사 ***푸드(이하 '***푸드'라 한다)는 2012. 5. 1. 안산시 상록구 동막2길9에서 축산물 도��소매업 등의 사업을 운영하는 법인으로 원고의 처 송**이 그 대표

On January 30, 2015, a director was employed as a director. On February 29, 2016, the place of business was relocated to the mountain road, the first floor, and closed the business on February 29, 2016, and the corporation**

C. **** Pud' has sold various parts of livestock products in original meat condition or supplied them to customers by packaging them after processing, such as spicve treatment, etc. at the workplace, and the main products are ‘Wool' at the beginning of the white year.

It is a processed meat such as ‘this'.

D. From August 26, 2015 to November 20, 2015, the Defendant’s general integration of individual entrepreneurs against the Plaintiff.

Results of examining value-added tax data from the first to the second period of 2014 after conducting an investigation.

① Although the Plaintiff sold an item subject to value-added tax, he/she reported it to a tax-free sale.

The fact that the virtual value tax has been omitted (the cost of supply: KRW 884.5 million) and ② the omission of sales (the subject of taxation: KRW 39.7 million, KRW 1,99.6 million): ③ processing sales (the subject of taxation: KRW 30.8 million, KRW 1,067 million, and KRW 1,067 million: the subject of tax exemption) was found, and ④******* ** * * * * ..00 (hereinafter referred to as " ** ?) purchase was omitted (**: 131 million, KRW 8.7 million).

E. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on December 1, 2015, with respect to the Plaintiff, within the period of January 2012 as indicated in the attached disposition list.

지 2014년 2기분 각 부가가치세를 경정��고지(이하 '이 사건 각 처분'이라 한다)하였다.

F. On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 15, 2016, but the said appeal was filed.

On June 23, 2016, the Board rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.

사. 한편 피고는 2015. 12. 1. ***푸드, **미트에 대하여 ***푸드에 대한 각 매출이 누락되었다는 등의 이유로 2012년 1기분 내지 2014년 2기분 각 부가가치세를 경정��고지하였고, 이에 ***푸드는 2016. 8. 19. 수원지방법원 2016구합66682호로, **미트는 같은 날 수원지방법원 2016구합66675호로 각 부가가치세부과처분취소의 소를 제기하였으나, 2017. 3. 28. **미트에 대하여, 이 사건 변론종결 후인 2017. 4. 13.**푸드에 대하여 각 청구를 기각하는 판결이 선고되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 through 14 (including each number in the case of evidence with provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s each of the dispositions of this case as follows is unlawful and thus revoked.

I asserts that it is true.

(a) argument on consignment processing transactions;

******* after processing the processing of the processing of the processing of the rearing from food, etc. ***Pd, etc. ****Pd, etc. ****Pd, etc. *** Pd (personal business entity of the Plaintiff),*** Pd,** Md, etc. *

Therefore, since the above consignment processing transaction between the plaintiff and ***** the above consignment processing transaction (hereinafter referred to as "the consignment processing transaction of this case") is merely an internal transaction and is not subject to value-added tax, the principal tax of value-added tax and the additional tax (the part of "entrusted processing transaction" in the attached claim list) on the premise that the value of supply of the consignment processing transaction of this case during each disposition of this case constitutes the supply of goods is illegal

B. Claim on the imposition of an unjust under-reported penalty tax

The Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice or issued a tax invoice subject to tax exemption has an inevitable aspect in that the issuance of a tax invoice is avoided or a tax exemption invoice is issued under the practices of the same industry. The Plaintiff entered the details of the actual sales in the electronic computer system and manages the price into the Plaintiff’s business account. Therefore, the Defendant could at any time verify the details of the relevant value-added tax return or conduct a tax investigation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not engage in the “act that significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes” under Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same). Therefore, the part that exceeds the general under-reported penalty tax ("unfair under-reported penalty tax" in the attached list of claims) is illegal.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Determination on the legality of each of the dispositions of this case

A. Determination on consignment processing transactions

Value-added tax should, in principle, be reported and paid at each workplace, and even the same entrepreneur.

A person who is not a business-unit taxable business operator shall be registered as a business operator for each place of business (value-added tax);

Articles 3 subparag. 1, 6(1), and 8(1) of the Act, and Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

section 9(1) provides that the entrepreneur shall impose tax on the supply of goods or services.

The supply of goods shall be delivered or delivered in accordance with all contractual and legal grounds.

It provides that a transfer shall be made.

The following facts revealed in full view of the relevant provisions and the evidence examined above in the above facts of recognition

According to circumstances, the Plaintiff and ****The sales related to the consignment processing transaction of this case with the Plaintiff.

Since it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is subject to value-added tax due to supply, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion

shall not be held.

"① 원고는 2006. 4. 21. 군포시 금정동 694에서 '**유통'이란 상호로 사업생육가공업 등으로 사업자등록을 하고 사업을 운영하다가, 2014. 12. 19. 그 상호를 '**굿푸드'로 변경하고, 사업장을군포시 산본로 0, 1층'으로 이전하여 영업을 하여온 개인사업자이며, ***푸드는 2012. 5. 1. 안산시 상록구 에서 축산물 도��소매업 등의 사업을 운영하다가, 2015. 1. 30. 사업장을군포시 산본로으로 이전하여 영업을 하여 온 법인이고, **미트는 2012. 2. 16. 하남시 하남대로에서 같은 사업을 운영하는 법인인 사실은 앞에서 본 바와 같다. 원고와 ***푸드 등은 이 사건 각 처분의 과세기간을 기준으로 그 법인격, 사업장이 서로 상이하여 하나의 회사가 아니라 별개의 사업자에 해당한다.",② 부가가치세는 재화 등의 흐름에 따라 유통단계마다 부과되는 간접세로서 원칙적으로 사업장마다 신고��납부하여야 하므로, 직접세에서 필요로 하는 법인격의 유무 등의 인적 요소는 원칙적으로 고려할 필요가 없이 사업장 단위로 과세되어야 한다. 그런데 원고와 ***푸드 등은 이 사건 각 처분의 과세기간 동안 다른 사업장에서 각각 별개의 사업자등록을 하고 사업을 운영하였다.

③ ***푸드 등의 원고에 대한 전산시스템상 각 거래처별 매출내역 정리(갑 제13,14호증)에 의하면 이 사건 위탁가공거래의 공급부분이 매출로 나타나고, 원고는 가공육뿐만 아니라 원육 자체도 판매하고 있었던 점 등을 고려하면 위 위탁가공거래 부분의 원육의 소비��사용권한은 원고에게 이전된 것으로 보인다. 따라서 원고와 ***푸드 등에 관한 매출은 부가가치세의 과세대상이 되는 재화의 공급에 해당된다고 봄이 타당

See Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3157 delivered on August 10, 1990, etc.).

B. Determination on the imposition of an unjust under-reported penalty tax

"Inreporting the tax base by unjust means" under Article 47-3 (2) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) means underreporting the tax base by an active act such as making it difficult to detect the taxation requirement of the national tax or forging or withdrawing false facts, which results from the purpose of tax evasion, such as evading the progressive tax rate and the application of the provisions on losses brought forward.

of the Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12362 Decided November 28, 2013

§ 6).

In light of the following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts and the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff underreported the tax base by an active act as an unlawful act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) The Plaintiff’s sales of processed meat subject to value-added tax and sales of tax-free growth.

B Separately, the value-added tax was reported for the first term of 2012 to the second term of 2014 (No. 4)

[Reference]

② The Plaintiff’s account statement, etc. issued by oneself is written differently from the fact.

(1) issue tax invoices or tax invoices in accordance with the customary practices despite the knowledge of the fact.

did not.

③ The Plaintiff’s act results in a decrease in national tax revenues.

I seem to have fully known that it would be a matter.

④ The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice different from the actual fact or omitted sales.

by means of the reduction of national tax revenue, and the sales of taxable revenue were caused by the register of tax exemption.

The data on the calculation of value-added tax, such as entry by sales, was falsely stated.

⑤ The Plaintiff’s act is confirmed by the tax authority to provide data on the electronic computer system.

Until analyzing, it is very difficult to discover the taxation requirement.

I seem to appear.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.