District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-16178 ( October 16, 2015)

Whether the pre-paid card price is the Plaintiff’s sales revenue stamp sales, and whether the pre-paid card’s sales revenue amount entered into the computer server is the basis sales amount.

A pre-paid card is supplied without compensation only due to the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, although the pre-paid card does not have the details of pre-paid card sales proceeds in the name account used by the Plaintiff, there is sufficient possibility that the pre-paid card exists other accounts than the accounts used by the Plaintiff.

2015Nu46194 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

○○○○○○○

○ Head of tax office

2016.04.06

2016.05.18

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. Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax (including each additional tax) listed in the attached Table 1 list against the plaintiff and each disposition of notification of changes in the income amount listed in the attached Table

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court’s ruling are excluded from the application of any applicable matter in the judgment of the first instance as follows:

The decision of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

○ 7 pages 2 below, the following shall be added:

The Plaintiff’s account under his/her name, such as Han-dong, in his/her preparatory document on April 1, 2016, shall be interested and transferred from the account under his/her name.

Although the account in the name of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s total account is not the borrowed name account, it is inconsistent with the allegations of the Plaintiff, and it cannot be accepted in violation of the aforementioned evidence and the statement in Gap evidence No. 48.

○ 7, 18, 19 of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 15 of Gap 10 and 15 are replaced by "The statements of Gap 10, 15, 31 through 36, 38 through 46, and the result of this court's personal examination (not partial reliance)".

○ 8. A. 56, 57 is added to the 9th 9th west.

According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry reply to the Game Management Committee of this Court, the plaintiff's game contents are only paid coophones (pre-paid cards) and the plaintiff's issuance of coophones is deemed to have no content reported to the Game Management Committee in relation to free coophones (e.g., coophones). Thus, since the issuance of coophones was illegally intended, it appears that the plaintiff could have been issued at any time when the quantity falls short of the amount."

○ 9 pages 3 " alone with each description of evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 of A," is replaced by “only the description of evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 27, 28, 48, 50, 51, and 60 of A and the result of this Court’s representative questioning.”

○ 9 5 pages 5, the following shall be added:

The plaintiff asserted that the amount recognized as sales of pre-paid cards from March 17, 2008 to September 14, 2009 is only 00 won in a criminal case against Gangwon-do et al., and each of the dispositions of this case is contrary to this. However, the above criminal case is related to the crime of gambling opening, which was finalized on February 24, 201, while each of the dispositions of this case was based on the tax investigation against the plaintiff conducted thereafter, and thus, the above assertion is not acceptable.

In addition, the Plaintiff was supplied with a pre-paid card on August 8, 2009 and September 20 of the same year by the Plaintiff.

The borrowed-name account used was an account in the name of ○○○○. Since the above pre-paid card sales proceeds (amounting to 00 won) were not deposited in the account, the above pre-paid card did not have been sold at a cost. However, it is sufficient that the account used by the Plaintiff was in the name of the borrowed-name account used by the Plaintiff, other than the name of ○○○ or ○○○○○○, etc., and thus, it is difficult to view that the above pre-paid card was supplied free of charge solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff.

○ 10 pages 10 by inserting the “Evidence No. 23, 56, 57 of A, and No. 24 of B” are added to the 10 pages 10.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.