Suwon District Court 201Guhap10806 ( October 25, 2012)

early 2010 Heavy0807 (201.06.07)

It cannot be deemed that the instant tax investigation of the value-added tax of this case does not constitute a duplicate investigation solely on the grounds that other tax items are included in value-added tax.

It cannot be deemed that the instant tax investigation on value-added tax of this case does not constitute a duplicate investigation solely on the ground that the instant tax investigation on the value-added tax of this case includes any other tax items than value-added tax, which

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu18600. Revocation, etc. of the imposition of value-added tax

1. The GimA 2.G. 3.GG. 4.DD 5.E 6.GF

7. MaximumG 8. Park H 9. Park II 10. Park J 11. GimK

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap10806 Decided May 25, 2012

June 11, 2013

July 5, 2013

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On October 9, 2009, the Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting the refund of the value-added tax of the second-year value-added tax of the 2008 △△△, the disposition imposing the second-year value-added tax of the 2008 △△△, and the disposition imposing the additional tax of the second-year value-added tax of the 2008 △△△△, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. A cited part;

The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition to the following 2.3. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The following parts shall be added between conduct 12 and 13 of the judgment of the first instance.

D. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant's assertion

(A) LLOsan Co., Ltd. issued and issued a tax invoice for the 20-year right to use the building on the ground that it supplied the 20-year right to use the building on the ground of the extension to PPF (Plaintiffs) on November 19, 2008, which is equivalent to the construction cost of the above extension portion, and the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of OO tax as the amount of value-added tax refund for the second year of 2008 according to the Defendant’s disposition of refund of value-added tax around February 27, 2009. Since the Defendant’s tax investigation conducted from March 4, 2009 to March 17, 2009 (hereinafter “previous tax investigation”), it did not include the previous tax investigation conducted by the Seoul Regional Tax Office from May 14, 2009 to the same year (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”). Accordingly, the tax investigation conducted by the Seoul Local Tax Office for the purpose of the integrated tax investigation (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”).

(B) Even if the instant tax investigation constitutes a duplicate investigation, the instant investigation constitutes a case where a single investigation is exceptionally permitted on the grounds that the instant investigation constitutes a case where a single investigation is conducted with respect to a person suspected of tax evasion through the acts that disrupt economic order such as speculative investment in real estate, intermediary and intermediary transactions, without authentic documentation, etc. under Article 63-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21316, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter the same).

(2) Determination

(A) We examine the assertion that first of all, the tax items are different and do not constitute duplicate investigations.

Article 81-4 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) stipulates that "tax officials shall not conduct re-investigation into the same items of taxation and the same taxable period unless they fall under any of the following subparagraphs."

Article 12 (Prohibition and Prevention of Overlapping Investigations) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigations, which is the instructions of the National Tax Service, shall not re-examine the same tax item and the same taxable period, except in exceptional cases where a re-investigation may be conducted, as prescribed by Article 81-4 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the event of conducting a tax investigation, and shall take necessary measures, such as withdrawal of investigation and withdrawal of investigation, and the receipt of investigation teams, if duplicate investigation is confirmed after the commencement of the investigation. In order to prevent duplicate investigation of the △△△△, the head of regional tax office and the tax office's investigation and the head of the tax office's investigation and the head of the income tax and the director of the corporate tax office shall enter and manage the details of selection, etc. of the persons subject to investigation and the persons subject to investigation, and if a whole investigation is conducted with respect to a

Therefore, the instant tax investigation on value-added tax of this case cannot be deemed as not constituting duplicate investigation solely on the ground that the tax items subject to the instant tax investigation include any other tax items than value-added tax, which is subject to the previous tax investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12070, Jun. 2, 2006). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(B) Next, we examine the assertion that it constitutes an exception to the prohibition of duplicate investigation under Article 63-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Article 81-4 (2) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "General investigation is conducted on a person suspected of evading taxes through speculative investment in real estate, intermediary transactions, transactions without authentic documentation, etc." as an exception to the prohibition of duplicate investigation.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 45 and Eul evidence Nos. 12 through 15, and 17 (including paper numbers), △△△△△ conducted a tax investigation as a whole on May 14, 2009 on the part of its shareholders, and designated the NM as its representative director as its subsidiary tax investigation officer, and started an investigation on the part of LLsan Co., Ltd. and PPsan (Plaintiffs) as its subsidiary tax investigation officer. The △△△△△△△△△ was established through the report materials at the time of conducting the daily investigation on May 14, 2009, through the analysis of the facts that the above general investigation was conducted for the economically weak, such as the ordinary people suffering from the economic harm of the general public, the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△'s selection of food and livestock products as its subsidiary food and livestock products, and it was recognized that it constitutes a violation of the National Tax Service's domestic culture of origin and food products, and thus, including the Plaintiff-related domestic food and livestock products.

According to the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the right to use the building of this case is related to the value-added tax of this case where the right to use the building of this case is at issue among LLF Co., Ltd. and PPD (Plaintiffs).

In addition, Article 21 (Advance notice of tax investigation) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs shall prepare a prior notice of tax investigation, as prescribed by Article 81-7 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and shall serve the taxpayer or the tax manager and keep the evidential documents by which service is verifiable at least 10 days prior to the commencement of the investigation: Provided, That where it is deemed impossible to achieve the purpose of investigation because a prior notice is likely to destroy evidence, etc. if a prior notice is made pursuant to the proviso of Article 81-7 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, such prior notice may be omitted and the investigation may commence after obtaining approval from the head of the investigating agency (paragraph (1)), and where a tax investigation commences pursuant to the proviso of paragraph (1) of the same Article, a notice of tax investigation stating the omission of such prior notice at the commencement of the tax investigation (paragraph (2)), and where a prior notice of tax investigation or a tax investigation is made, a notice of tax investigation or a notice of tax investigation shall be stated in the column of "reasons for investigation", and scope of tax items to be excluded.

Thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax investigation of this case is permitted because it falls under the Japanese tax investigation under Article 63-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case are justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.