Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-143 (2018.09)

The instant transaction does not constitute a consignment transaction.

Since the instant transaction does not constitute a consignment transaction, the Plaintiff is obligated to receive and issue a tax invoice and file a value-added tax return reflecting it in the purchase and sale.

Article 10 (Special Cases of Supply of Goods) (7) of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu61866 and revocation of disposition to impose value-added tax and corporate tax.

OO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap143 Decided August 9, 2018

October 4, 2018

November 1, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On May 1, 2017, the defendant revoked the imposition of the value-added tax for the first term of 2012 against the plaintiff, the value-added tax for the second term of 2012, the value-added tax for the second term of 2013, the value-added tax O for the second term of 2013, the value-added tax O for the second term of 2014, the OO for the first term of 2014, the corporate tax for the second term of 2012, the O for the corporate tax for the business year of 2012, the O for the corporate tax for the business year of 2013, and the imposition of the O for the corporate tax for the business year of 2014.

1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4.Each note 2) shall be deleted.

5 At the bottom of 5, the following shall be added to:

(AAA representative director BBB and vice president CCC have made a statement to the following effect in the process of alcoholic beverage distribution to AA or the investigation of distribution tracking of alcoholic beverages by the director of the regional tax office (No. 4-1, No. 2).

From 2012 to 2014, a tax invoice issued by AA to the Plaintiff is an OO member, and sales confirmed by AA’s company’s computer program (for the Plaintiff, the amount of the latter is the amount of actual transaction with the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff requested that the "AAA" deliver alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff, and that some of the tax invoices to be delivered to the plaintiff be cut in the name of the plaintiff's business partner by specifying the business operator number and amount, so there are many business partners overlapping between the plaintiff and the AA.

(B) Since the Plaintiff could not cease the tax invoice equivalent to the amount of alcoholic beverages actually traded to the transaction partner, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was cut down by AA to the transaction partner, etc. The Plaintiff’s tax invoice was issued only without actual sales to the transaction partner that overlaps with the Plaintiff.

OO members, which are the difference between the sales amount of the Plaintiff confirmed in the AA’s computer program and the amount reported to the National Tax Service, were sold to the Plaintiff, but only the tax invoice was delivered to the Plaintiff’s customer, etc.

AA had no special criteria when issuing a tax invoice to the Plaintiff’s customer, etc., and issued it as required by the Plaintiff.

The purpose of each of the above statements is to issue a tax invoice to the Plaintiff’s customer upon the Plaintiff’s request for part of alcoholic beverages supplied by AA to the Plaintiff.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.