Whether a self-written confirmation constitutes a basis for taxation data;

A certificate of free will prepared by a free will, without the coercion of an employee, will serve as a basis for taxation.

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Determination and Correction)

Enforcement Decree Article 68 (Scope of Grounds for Decision or Correction)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 8,927,280 on August 1, 2006 and KRW 5,992,250 on the first term portion of 2005 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2006 is revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

On August 1, 2006, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted cash sales of KRW 73,681,818, and KRW 51,818,182 during the taxation period of the second value-added tax on August 1, 2005 during the taxation period of the value-added tax on KRW 51,818,182 during the first taxable period of the second taxable period of the value-added tax on KRW 8,927,280 and KRW 5,92,250 for the second taxable period of KRW 205 (hereinafter each of the dispositions in this case).

(A) Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, and 1, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant issued each of the dispositions of this case on the basis of only one copy of confirmation without any specific content, even though the plaintiff did not have any omission in cash sales. Each of the dispositions of this case by the defendant is unlawful against the principle of base taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) From August 2, 1992, the Plaintiff is running a general restaurant (limited to a general restaurant) with the name of ○○○○-○○○○○○○○○, Seoul, ○○-dong from August 2, 1992. The Plaintiff has ten facilities with a scale of 180 square meters and mainly sells beef 30,000 won per person.

(2) The details of credit card sales, the details of cash sales, the ratio of cash sales, etc. reported by the Plaintiff during the taxable period of value-added tax from the first to the second half of 2003 are as follows.

(units: 1,00 won

Gu Sector

Value-added Tax

Tax Base

1. (=B+n)

Credit cards

SectorB

Cash Receipts

Sector III

Cash

Division of Sales No.4

Cash

Gross Sales

5(=+No.

Cash sales

p.n. p. p.i.

1, 2003

816,312

74,591

41,712

41,712

5.10 per cent

203.2

927,796

906,195

21,601

21,601

2.32%

100 1. 1

784,660

712,638

72,022

72,022

9.17%)

204.2

1,028,250

1,010,121

18,129

18,129

1.76%)

1, 2005

1,113,853

99,661

5,046

109,145

14,192

10.25%

2, 2005

1,357,634

1,190,907

23,823

142,903

166,727

12.28%

(3) On February 2006, the head of ○○ Tax Office received a written confirmation from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff reported value-added tax by omitting a part of cash sales, through a tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s workplace, and had the Defendant correct and notify the value-added tax including each of the dispositions of this case as listed below.

(units: 1,00 won

Gu Sector

The omitted amount of sales

Notice Tax Amount

non-higher

203. 203

1.

51,045

7,304

2nd class

20,454

4,888

Sub-committees

71,500

204.

1.

3,872

4,473

Request for Adjudication

2nd class

61,427

7,776

Sub-committees

95,300

205.

1.

73,681

8,927

Filing a suit

2nd class

51,818

5,992

Filing a suit

Sub-committees

125,500

(4) The confirmation document (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant stated as follows: “I see that the head of ○○ Tax Office omitted cash sales from the entry from the year 2003 to the year 2005, including the amount of documentary evidence and family-related expenses in some of the necessary expenses, and that I see that I do not object to taxation,” and the annual cash sales omission and necessary expenses denial amount are attached thereto.

(5) The statement of omission of cash sales revenue amount attached to the above written confirmation is only the tax amount omitted from the first taxable period of value-added tax on 2003 to the second taxable period of value-added tax on 2005, but does not include specific contents such as the omitted month, day, transaction partner, etc.

(6) The Plaintiff’s share of cash sales on 2003.0 and 2004. The Plaintiff’s share of cash sales on 2003. and 2004 is about 10 per cent, and the share of cash sales on 2005 is about 15 per cent.

(7) When the head of ○○ Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s tax agent attended the tax investigation.

(Evidence Nos. 1 to 6, 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, a written confirmation that served as the basis for each of the dispositions of this case is sufficiently recognized as reasonable in the authenticity and content of the formation, and it does not seem that the Defendant’s each of the dispositions of this case was made on the basis of only a written confirmation that the establishment of the establishment is not recognized as genuine, or that it was made

(1) In light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff recognized all the details of the confirmation as to the remainder of the disposition of this case among the disposition of correction and notification of value-added tax for the second period from 1 to 2003, 2005, there is no reasonable ground to acknowledge that only the part related to each disposition of this case among the contents of the above confirmation is erroneous.

(2) The instant confirmation document does not appear to have been prepared by deception or coercion of an employee of the ○○ Tax Office, but appears to have been prepared by the Plaintiff’s free will.

(3) In light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff’s agent participated in the instant tax investigation process, and that it appears that the Plaintiff was also involved in the preparation and submission of the instant confirmation document, it appears that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the instant confirmation document after obtaining the aid of a tax specialist and completing sufficient review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the dispositions by the defendant is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.