Whether the shortage of inventory assets by window dressing accounts is subject to the actual reduced accounting

While it is confirmed that the shortage of the plaintiff's inventory assets does not exist by the actual inventory inspection, the defendant imposed the shortage of inventory assets by deeming them as a business donation for the shortage of inventory assets, but the original disposition imposed by omitting sales without investigating the cause related thereto is illegal

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,928,440,750 against the Plaintiff on December 24, 2004 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, an enterprise which processes and assembles steel structures, including the sn beam beam beam etc., and supplies them to the construction company, was responsible for the reduced accounting of 2,951,293,884 won of inventory assets in the business year 1998 (the total amount of KRW 2,121,101,101,961 won of the products, and KRW 822,721,526 won of the products, and KRW 7,470,397 of the products, the total amount of KRW 1,92,76,516 (products1,170,404,990 of the products, KRW 82,721,526 of the re-processed products, the total amount of KRW 1,958,527,368 (income and loss) of the products, the total amount of losses calculated at KRW 1,95,97,975 of the products, the total amount of losses calculated at KRW 16397,497,797,9797,297 of the product losses of the product.

B. On December 24, 2004, the Defendant collected value-added tax by deeming the total amount of KRW 1,752,063,819, and KRW 11,562,768,819 as products reduced in the business year 1999 and KRW 13,314,831,819 as products reduced in the business year 199 as products manufactured in the business year 1,562,768,00 as products sold to the business partner and then as products donated for business purposes. The Defendant collected value-added tax by deeming the Plaintiff’s waiver of rights as products donated for business purposes. The amount of KRW 82,721,526, which was reduced in the business year 1998 and KRW 3,645,961,761, total amount of KRW 4,468,68,283,287 as bonus to the representative.

C. On March 4, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication. On December 24, 2004, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 334,721,920 against the Plaintiff on December 24, 2004 and KRW 822,721,00 as bonus in the business year of 1998, and revoked the disposition of KRW 904,993,10 as bonus. However, upon the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,562,768,00 as bonus in the business year of 1999, the value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on KRW 3,645,961, value-added tax of KRW 761,761, value-added tax of KRW 11,200 as gift to the business partner who renounced his right (hereinafter “the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2945,2097,20940.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence 4, Gap's evidence 1, 2, and Gap's evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) The issue of inventory assets is a processing process which is accounts for an excessive appropriation by the window dressing settlement, and only existed as a long-term injury, and there was no actual existence. Therefore, even though the supply of goods subject to value-added tax did not exist, the defendant made the instant disposition without any investigation or proof as to the fact of supply, which goes against the principle of base taxation.

(2) Even if the supply of goods subject to value-added tax exists, the instant disposition is imposed five years after the exclusion period.

(b) Related statutes;

E.L. Value-Added Tax Act

Article 9 (Transaction Time)

(1) The time of supply for goods shall be the time provided for in the following subparagraphs:

1. When the goods are delivered, in case where the moving of goods is required;

2. When the goods are made available, in case where the moving of goods is not required; and

3. When the supply of goods is decided, in case where the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the supply of the pertinent inventory assets exists

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the supply of the pertinent inventory assets exists is unlawful.

(2) Whether the exclusion period is expired

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the composition procedure for the plaintiff corporation was in progress from October 19, 198 to 26 of the same month, and the fact that the plaintiff corporation conducted an investigation into the shortage of inventory assets including the key inventory assets in the actual inspection of inventory assets conducted voluntarily by the plaintiff corporation from October 1998 to October 26, 1998, and the disposition of this case was conducted until October 26, 1998, and it was about the shortage of inventory assets revealed in the actual inspection process. Thus, the time of supply of the key inventory assets shall be the date following the date of the report of value-added tax return for the second half of January 25, 1998, which belongs to the date of the completion of the above actual inspection. Thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful since the five years have elapsed from the date of the expiration of the above actual inspection, since the disposal of this case was in excess of the calendar period imposed on December 24, 2004.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is illegal in that it is deemed to be a single mother, and the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is justified under the premise that it is illegal, and it is so decided as per Disposition.