(영문) 대전지방법원 2016. 09. 28. 선고 2015구합101794 판결

1. Of the instant lawsuit, each part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,324,610 and KRW 16,285,530 for the first term of 2012 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 14,817,830 for the second term of December 1, 2013, the imposition of KRW 14,817,830 for the second term of 2010, the imposition of KRW 1,704,710 for the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2010, the imposition of KRW 94,901,210 for the first term of 2012, and the imposition of KRW 11,942,720 for the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2012 shall be revoked, respectively.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on November 3, 2010 for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of scrap metal and non-ferrous metal.

나. 원고는 주식회사 AAA유(변경전 상호 : 주식회사 ***가상호변경 전후를 불문하고 'AAA유'라 한다)와 주식회사 bb금속(이하 'bb금속'이라 한다)으로부터 아래 표 기재와 같이 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라 한다)를 교부받아, 2010년 2기분 부가가치세, 2010 사업연도 법인세, 2012년 1기분 부가가치세, 2012년 법인세 각 신고・납부시 위 각 세금계산서상 매입액 관련 부가가치세액을 공제하고 그 매입액을 손금에 산입하여 부가가치세 및 법인세를 신고・납부하였다(이하 AAA유와 bb금속을 통틀어 '이 사건 매입처'라 한다).다. @@지방국세청장은 이 사건 매입처에 대한 세무조사 결과 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 사실과 다르게 기재된 세금계산서로 보고 이를 ##세무서장에게 과세자료로 통보하였고, ##세무서장은 이와 같은 이유로 2013. 12. 1. 원고에 대하여 이 사건 각 세금계산서에 기한 부가가치세액 매입세액 공제를 부인하고, 그에 따라 2010년 2기분 부가가치세 14,817,830원(부당과소신고가산세 3,099,480원, 납부불성실가산세 2,419,919원, 허위세금계산서수취가산세 1,549,740원 포함), 2012년 1기분 부가가치세94,901,210원(부당과소신고가산세 21,714,040원, 납부불성실가산세 8,135,874원, 허위세금계산서수취가산세 10,857,020원 포함)과, 이 사건 각 세금계산서 상당금액에 대하여적법한 증빙서류를 수취하지 아니하였다는 이유로 법인세법상 증빙미수취가산세로2010 사업연도 법인세 1,704,710원, 2012 사업연도 법인세 11,942,720원을 경정・고지하였다(이하 위 각 부과처분을 통틀어 '이 사건 각 처분'이라 한다). 라. 원고는 이 사건 각 처분에 불복하여 2014. 7. 17. 조세심판원장에게 심판청구를 하였는데, 조세심판원장은 2015. 1. 19. 이 사건 각 처분 중 부당과소신고가산세를 부과하였던 부분을 일반과소신고가산세를 적용하는 것으로 경정하고, 원고의 나머지 청구를 기각하였다.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant respectively corrected the amount of KRW 3,09,480 from each of the dispositions in the instant case, which was 2010, to KRW 774,870 from general underreporting, and KRW 21,714,040 from general underreporting, which was 5,428,510 from general underreporting.

바. 원고의 본점소재지인 아산시는 당초 ##세무서장의 관할구역이었다가, 2015. 2. 26. 국세청과 그 소속기관 직제 일부개정령(대통령령 제26114호 )에 의하여 피고의 관할구역으로 변경되었다(이하에서는 ##세무서장과 피고를 구분하지 아니하고 '피고'라 한다).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, Evidence No. 2-1, 2, Evidence No. 7-2, Evidence No. 13-1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. From among the instant lawsuits, the following facts are examined: (a) ex officio examining whether the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 2324,610, KRW 16,285,530 for the first term portion of 2012 is lawful; (b) if the administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void; and (c) the revocation lawsuit against the non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the aforementioned facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s revocation of each of the instant dispositions and imposition of the general under-reported penalty tax for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 3,099, KRW 480 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the second term portion of 20, KRW 774,870 for the general underreporting, KRW 23215,2014.

3. Whether the remaining part of each disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the remaining part of this case") is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant purchase tax invoice in a normal manner and received the purchase tax invoice; and (b) each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice under Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”).

2) Even if the supplier of each of the instant tax invoices is different from the facts, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and the Plaintiff was not aware of such fact, and thus, the remaining disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. In such a case, the meaning different from the fact is that the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, belongs to a person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, and if there is another person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, etc. belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the necessary entries of a tax invoice refer to a case where the necessary contents of a transaction between the parties to the transaction concerning goods or service do not coincide with the actual supplier, value, and timing of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that even if the supply of goods actually exists, such transaction constitutes “tax invoice” which is different from the actual supplier.

B) In full view of the following circumstances, whether a tax invoice received from AA oil constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff’s actual purchaser of the closed agreement pursuant to the purchase tax invoice received from AA oil is a third party, not a AA, and AA oil constitutes a disguised trader that issues only a tax invoice to the Plaintiff under its own name. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. (1) DDR, which was a representative director of AA oil at the time of the transaction with the Plaintiff, was established for the purpose of scrap metal and scrap metal wholesale business on June 14, 2007, was not engaged in a business related to scrap metal business or related business, and was actually engaged in a business related to the business in Incheon Dong-dong for the period of time the representative director of AA oil was actually registered as the representative director of the AA, and there was no change in the operation of BA oil-related business in the remaining Dong-dong for the period of 201.

(2) AAA유에 김포시 대곶면 송마리소재 사업장을 임대한 ggg의 부 hhh은 @@지방국세청의 AAA유에 대한 세무조사 당시 '위 사업장에서 폐동류는 취급하지 않았고, 계근시설도 사용한 적이 없고, jjj, kkk라는 인적사항 불명의 사람들이 사출기 등을 갖추고 전선연결잭으로 추정되는 물품을 제조하는 사업장으로 사용하였다'고 진술하였다.

(3) @@지방국세청의 AAA유에 대한 세무조사 당시, AAA유가 운송비 관련 매입액으로 신고하였던 운송거래의 당사자인 운송기사들은 'AAA유는 기억나지 않는다'거나, 'AAA유와 거래한 적은 있으나 상차는 김포시 대곶면 송마리 이외의 장소에서 하였다'고 진술하였다.

(4) On the second half of 2010, AA oil filed an input tax return by asserting that it was supplied with waste Dongs equivalent to KRW 22,737,00,000 in total from LL metal (representative mm). However, LL metal was charged as data on the value-added tax for the second half of 2010, and LL metal was charged as data on the value-added tax for the second half of 2010. LL metal was charged as n resources and n resources, n resources, and n resources, n resources, which were purchased sites of LL metal, were charged as data without any purchase and sale, and △ metal did not seem to have the ability to supply high waste Dongs as above in AAA oil.

C) In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s actual purchaser of the closure agreement on the purchase tax invoice delivered from BB metal is a third party other than BB metal, and BB metal is a disguised trader that issued only tax invoices to the Plaintiff in its own name, based on the following circumstances, if the tax invoice received from B metal is true or not, and the Plaintiff is a disguised trader that issued only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff in its own name.

The Plaintiff’s tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from BM is a tax invoice that differs from the fact, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) 서pp과 성QQ은 2011. 3. 28. 비철금속도매업을 목적으로 세기금속을 설립하였는데, 이RR는 2012. 1. 20. bb금속의 대표이사로 취임하였다. 세기금 속의 설립자금은 성QQ이 마련하였고, 성QQ이 bb금속의 매입 및 매출거래를 주도하였으며, 공인인증서도 관리하였다. 성QQ은 bb금속 설립 당시 bb금속의 사업장 인근에서 ss메탈이라는 상호로 비철금속도매업을 영위하였고, ss메탈 사업장에 폐동을 야적하였다. 성QQ은 ss메탈 사무실에서 bb금속의 매출처에 대한 세금계산서를 하였다. (2) bb금속의 대표자 이RR는 2012. 1. 20. bb금속의 대표이사로 취임하기 이전에 비철 관련 사업을 운영하거나 관련 업무에 종사한 적이 없고, 2006. 11. 1.부터 2012. 3. 7.까지 tt통운이라는 상호로 화물운송사업을 영위하였다. 이RR는 @@지방국세청의 bb금속에 대한 세무조사 당시, bb금속의 사업장(평택시 청북읍 고렴리 을 임차하면서 임대차보증금 20,000,000원을 어떻게 조달하였는지, bb금속의 거래처와 자금관리를 어떻게 하였냐는 조사관의 질문에 명확히 답변하지 못하였다.(3) bb금속은 부가가치세 신고 당시 2011년 1기에는 매출액 366,000,000원, 매입액 480,000,000원을 신고하였고, 2011년 2기에는 매출액과 매입액을 신고하지 아니하였고, 2012년 1기에는 매출액 18,065,000,000원, 매입액 17,959,000,000원, 2012년 2기에는 매출액 14,709,000,000원, 매입액 677,000,000원을 신고하여, 2012년에 이르러 매출액과 매입액으로 신고된 액수가 급증하였다.

(4) @@지방국세청의 조사 결과, bb금속의 법인예금계좌에서 2011년도에 자금 중 일부가 성QQ이 운영하는 ss메탈로 출금되었고, 성QQ이 위 예금계좌의 공인인증서를 보관하면서 위 예금계좌의 입출금내역을 실질적으로 관리하였던 사실이 밝혀졌다.

(5) @@지방국세청의 조사 결과, bb금속의 법인예금계좌에 2012년도에 원고로부터 거래대금이 입금되면 bb금속이 주로 자신의 매입처인 uu금속으로 거래대금을 송금하였고, uu금속은 폭탄업체인 vv산업, ww자원 등의 예금계좌로 거래대금을 송금하였으며, 위 업체들은 그 거래대금을 즉시 현금으로 인출하였다.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a trading party with good faith and negligence

A) Relevant legal principles

Unless there are special circumstances that the entrepreneur who actually supplies and the supplier on a tax invoice are different from the facts, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the name of the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refundable, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the name was entered in the name of the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997). B) Whether the purchaser of the input tax deduction or refund was negligent in the transaction with AA oil.

Upon examining the purport of Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 6-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2, and 3 as a whole, the plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate, a copy of passbook of deposit account which will deposit the transaction price, and a name of DDR representative director on Nov. 20, 2010 between the plaintiff and AA oil, and a detailed statement of transactions that the plaintiff would be provided with 8,893 km above the plaintiff on Nov. 22, 2010; the plaintiff paid at least 85,236,635 won, added value-added tax to the supply amount of the tax invoice to the above deposit account; the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was not aware of the violation of Gap's Punishment of Tax Offenses Act as to the representative director on Feb. 11, 2014; the plaintiff's assertion that the non-prosecution evidence No. 5 was not proven as evidence of the violation of Gap's Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(1) Since the Plaintiff’s internal director EOO has been treating recyclable wastes from around 2006, it appears that the Plaintiff was aware of the structure and distribution route of the waste consent, the general form or method of the pertinent industry, and the actual state and risk of data transactions.

(2) The Plaintiff became aware of the AA oil through the introduction of the Customer. At the time of the Plaintiff’s transaction with the AA oil, the place of business of the AA oil was located in the Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju District District. However, the said place of business was closed from November 15, 2010 to November 30, 2010. In light of the above % statement, the Plaintiff could have easily known that if the Plaintiff had visited the place of business of the AA oil at the time of transaction with the AA oil, it would not actually handle the waste. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not seek to visit the place of business of the AA oil while commencing the transaction with the AA oil and to verify whether the AA oil was equipped with fundamental equipment, such as mooring, camping, and transportation vehicles.

(3) The representative director of the Plaintiff stated that, at the time of the investigation conducted by the Busan Police Station on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the vehicle was transported to the Plaintiff’s place of business, and whether the Plaintiff’s transaction was transported to the △△△ Party, which is the customer of the Plaintiff, and that the vehicle was not directly transported the vehicle to the place of business of the △△ Party, and that the Plaintiff was unable to make a statement on the vehicle moving route provided by the AAA oil. In addition, the Plaintiff failed to submit a measurement certificate or a certificate of a driver of the vehicle transporting the waste vehicle supplied by the AA oil during the said investigation process.

(4) The Plaintiff asserted that there was no negligence in not knowing that the tax invoice delivered from AA oil constitutes a false tax invoice, since the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate, copy of passbook, etc. while commencing a transaction with AA oil, but the business registration certificate is issued to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business by requiring the business operator to file an application for registration with the head of the competent tax office in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax, etc. and secure taxation data, and is merely a certificate proving the registration of the business fact, and it is recognized that the copy of passbook satisfies the qualification or requirements to conduct business (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005).

Upon examining Gap evidence 8-2 through 15, Gap evidence 16-1 through 4, Gap evidence 17-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 18-1 through 4, Gap evidence 18-1 through 19-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 29-1, 29-2, and 3, the plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate, corporate seal impression certificate, copy of the deposit account to pay transaction price with Eul metal, bB metal representative director's name of Lee Jae-R, the fact that the plaintiff visited the place of business of Eul metal, and confirmed whether the plaintiff visited the place of business of Eul metal, and the fact that the transaction statement on the closed metal stated in each of the tax invoice of this case and the measurement was made between the plaintiff and Eul metal, and that the plaintiff supplied the end-of-life joint stock company (hereinafter referred to as "the counter-party joint stock company"), and the plaintiff supplied the counter-party joint stock company (hereinafter referred to as "the counter-party joint stock company").

그러나 갑 제4호증, 을 제4, 5, 6호증, 을 제8호증의7 내지 12의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들을 종합하면, 앞서 인정한 사실만으로는 원고가 bb금속이 실제 공급자가 아님을 알지 못하였고, 알지 못한 데 과실이 없었다고 보기에 부족하고, 오히려 원고로서는 bb금속으로부터 교부받은 세금계산서가 사실과 다르다는 사실, 즉 bb금속이 폐동의 실제 공급자가 아님을 알았거나, 적어도 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 허위로 작성된 것임을 알 수 있었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장 또한 이유 없다. (1) 원고는 bb금속의 사업장을 방문하였다는 점에 대한 증거로 bb금속의 사업장 사진(을 제8호증의7 내지 12)을 제출하였으나, 위 사진에 촬영일자가 기재되어 있지 않아 위 사진이 과연 원고가 bb금속과 거래를 시작하기 전에 촬영된 것인지 알 수 없다. (2) 통상 매입처로부터 폐동을 매입하는 경우 매수인측이 그 수량과 가액을 확인하는 과정을 거칠 것인데, 원고와 bb금속 사이에 작성된 각 거래명세서(갑제9호증의1, 갑 제10호증의1, 갑 제11호증의1, 갑 제12호증의1)의 인수자란에 원고측 담당자의 서명이나 날인이 되어 있지 않고, 위 거래명세서에 기재된 폐동의 수량과, 거래명세서와 같은 날 작성된 bb금속 명의의 계량확인서에 기재된 폐동의 수량과 일치하지 않는다. (가) 즉, 원고와 bb금속 사이의 2012. 2. 14.자 거래명세표(갑 제9호증의1)에는 거래대상인 폐동의 수량이 '노베1종 4,200kg, 석노베 8,996kg, 실노베 "10,706kg'로 기재되어 있는데, 같은 일자로 작성된 bb금속 명의의 계량확인서(갑 제9", "호증의2, 3, 4)에는 '노베 4,210kg, 석노베 9,010kg, 실신주 10,790kg'으로 기재되어 있다[한편, 위 거래명세표에 기재된 폐동의 수량은 원고가 2012. 2. 15. 매출처인 대창에발행한 매출세금계산서(갑 제16호증의3)에 기재된 폐동의 수량과 일치한다].",(나) 원고와 bb금속 사이의 2012. 2. 16.자 거래명세표(갑 제10호 증의1)에는 거래대상인 폐동의 수량이 '노베1종 8,944kg, 실노베 2,300kg, 인동 2,414kg, 석노베 3,679kg'로 기재되어 있는데, 같은 일자로 작성된 bb금속 명의의 계량확인서(갑 제10호증의2, 3, 4, 5)에는 '노베1종 8,960kg, 실노베 2,320kg, 인동 2,420kg, 석노베 3,690kg'으로 기재되어 있다[위 거래명세표에 기재된 폐동의 수량은 원고가 2012. 2. 17. 대창에 발행한 매출세금계산서(갑 제16호증의2)에 기재된 폐동의 수량과 일치한다].(다) 원고와 bb금속 사이의 2012. 2. 23.자 거래명세표(갑 제11호 증의1)에는 거래대상인 폐동의 수량이 '상동(석꽈배기) 14,810kg, 석홀더 2,578kg, 석챠핑 2,062kg'로 기재되어 있는데, 같은 일자로 작성된 bb금속 명의의 계량확인서(갑제11호증의2, 3)에는 '상동(석홀더, 석꽈배기) 17,390kg, 석챠핑 2,105kg'으로 기재되어있다[위 거래명세표에 기재된 폐동의 수량은 원고가 2012. 2. 23. 대창에 발행한 매출세금계산서(갑 제16호증의1)에 기재된 폐동의 수량과 일치한다].

(라) 원고와 bb금속 사이의 2012. 3. 14.자 거래명세표(갑 제12호증의1)에는 거래대상인 폐동의 수량이 '노베1종 11,036kg, 석노베 7,505kg'로 기재되어 있는데, 같은 일자로 작성된 bb금속 명의의 계량확인서(갑 제12호증의2, 3)에는 '노베 10,715kg, 석노베 7,510kg'으로 기재되어 있다[위 거래명세표에 기재된 폐동의 수량은원고가 2012. 3. 14. 대창에 발행한 매출세금계산서(갑 제16호증의4)에 기재된 폐동의수량과 일치한다]. (3) 원고는 폐동이 bb금속으로부터 원고의 매출처인 대&으로 바로 운송되었다는 취지로, 2012. 2. 23. ￥￥에 폐동을 운송하였다는 내용의 운전기사의 진술서(갑 제15호증, 을 제8호증)를 제출하였는데, 위 진술서의 내용은 위 차량번호 경83바oooo의 운전기사인 □□이 2012. 2. 23. 대창으로 동 19,500kg를 운송하였다는으로, 이는 원고가 ￥￥에 실제로 동을 공급하였다는 점에 대한 증거는 될 수 있겠으나, 위 폐동의 실제 공급자가 bb금속이라는 점을 입증하기에는 부족하다.

(4) On March 14, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted evidence No. 12-5, alleging that the Plaintiff was a photographic photograph taken by a vehicle (vehicle No. 84o6613) at the time when the vehicle was loaded in B metal on March 14, 2012. However, according to the evidence No. 12-5 video of the above vehicle No. 12-5, the maximum carrying capacity of the above vehicle is 4,500km, and the statement of transaction (Evidence No. 12-1) and written confirmation (Evidence No. 12-2, No. 12-3) written on the same day and written confirmation (Evidence No. 12-2, No. 12-2, No. 12-3), the Plaintiff’s authenticity of the above photograph is doubtful, and there is doubt that the Plaintiff’s act of photographing the vehicle from B metal at the time when the vehicle was loaded in B metal, or whether the Plaintiff actually confirmed that the closed metal was b.

(5) The delivery letter submitted by the Plaintiff from Bmetallic upon commencement of a transaction with Bmetallic around February 2012 includes “place of business and depository photographs, copies of the cargo vehicle registration certificate, copies of workplace and depository lease agreement, certificates of full payment of taxes, and certificates of value-added tax base for the last one year.” However, each of the above documents is an important material to determine whether Bmetallic is an actual supplier of the waste consent, and whether tax liability is faithfully performed. Thus, the failure to submit each of the above documents to the Plaintiff at the time of commencement of the transaction was under the circumstance that Bmetallic metal is doubtful as an actual supplier, but the Plaintiff did not undergo additional verification procedures.

3) Whether the remaining dispositions of this case are legitimate

A) Whether the imposition of value-added tax is lawful

Since each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was unaware of it and that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff, on such premise, that the defendant imposed the principal tax on the plaintiff, and that the defendant imposed the general underreporting pursuant to Article 47-3(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the additional tax for unfaithful return pursuant to Article 47-4(1) of the same Act, and the disposition imposing the additional tax due to the receipt of false tax invoice pursuant to Article 60(3)4

(1) Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “former Corporate Tax Act”) provides that where a corporation receives false evidentiary documents from a business entity prescribed by Presidential Decree to be supplied with goods or services, it shall collect an amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount received differently from the fact as corporate tax. Articles 120(3) and 158(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”) provide that “business entity prescribed by Presidential Decree”, other than a non-profit corporation, refers to a business entity under Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, excluding a simplified taxable person, and a business entity under Article 28 of the Income Tax Act, etc. shall be deemed to be subject to imposition of taxes based on the empirical rule-based rule-based rule-based requirement, if the Plaintiff could not be found to have any specific taxation requirement.

The Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received false evidentiary documents from an entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree under Article 76(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the disposition of imposing corporate tax on the remainder of the instant disposition is lawful.

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of KRW 2,324,610 among the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second term of February 2010 and the imposition disposition of KRW 16,285,530 among the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first term of January 2012 is unlawful and dismissed. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문