logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2020.01.20 2019누1055
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court of first instance and the evidence additionally adopted and examined in this court are justified in finding facts in the court of first instance and determining

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification and addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The evidence Nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to “Evidence Nos. 2, 13, 14, 16 through 20 of the judgment of the first instance.”

The following shall be added between the fourth and fourth of the judgment of the first instance:

No. 5,811 liters and other commercial 306 liters (out of vehicles) are indicated on the date of the sale in this case, the Plaintiff reported the sale in this case to the Korea Petroleum Manager by stating 6,00 liters, such as oil sold through the sale in this case. However, in the above transaction situation register, the Plaintiff entered the same on the date of the sale in this case that “5,81 liters and other commercial 306 liters” was sold (out of vehicles). However, when the Plaintiff entered the above transaction situation register, it is based on the sale rate (in the case of oil, etc. being sold outside of vehicles, etc., it is based on the daily 95% for household oil, etc., and 5% for other commercial purposes, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff concealed the

6. It is recognized that the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice to the other party at the time of the instant sales act.

However, since the amount of purchase and sales in the gas station should coincide with that of each kind of oil, even if the plaintiff does not issue a tax invoice or cash receipt separately, the fact of the occurrence of sales to the tax authorities should be identified.

Therefore, the other party is required.

arrow