beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 10, 2007, the Plaintiff, a business operator engaged in the export and import business of drugs with the trade name of “B,” entered into a contract on the export of drugs with “China Holdings” (hereinafter “China”).
B. The Plaintiff was supplied with drugs from middlehand trading companies and supplied them to foreign customers, including Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, and the Value-Added Tax period from January 2008 to February 2, 2010 (hereinafter “instant taxable period”) applied the zero-rate tax rate by deeming the sales price of goods exported under Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) as the sales price of goods exported from middlehand trading companies, and filed a value-added tax by applying the zero-rate tax rate.
C. The head of the Geumcheon Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and confirmed that the Plaintiff’s transaction that supplied the drugs to a foreign customer during the instant taxable period (hereinafter “instant transaction”) was a domestic service transaction with the Plaintiff’s provision of export agency services to the Jung Jung branch, a domestic corporation, and notified the Defendant of the relevant correction resolution.
On June 14, 2013, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from applying zero-rate tax for the supply of the instant goods, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 16,349,510 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2008, KRW 22,897,550 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2008, KRW 109,867,350 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2009, KRW 91,80,80,990 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 209, KRW 104,745,540 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2010, KRW 11,992,940 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2010.
E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each disposition and filed an objection with the director of the Central Regional Tax Office, and the director of the Central District Tax Office of China applied the zero-rate tax rate to the transaction with the Plaintiff on October 25, 2013.