The calculation of tax base based on the quantity of merchandise coupon purchase is illegal when calculating the estimated amount of tax base for the game site.

A person who is obligated to submit merchandise coupons, such as the details of issuance of merchandise coupons, is not only a merchandise coupon issuer, but a merchandise coupon dealer does not bear an obligation, and a merchandise coupon issuer does not investigate the authenticity of the report of the total merchandise coupon issuer, etc., it is insufficient to readily conclude

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

○ ○

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 22,769,550 for the first period of 2006 against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On January 10, 2006, the Plaintiff operated a game room (hereinafter “instant game room”) under the trade name of “○○○○○○○○-dong 43-43 Ground Building 1st, ○○○-dong 43-43,” and provided gift certificates as gift gifts according to the contents, if the Plaintiff collected a certain amount at the game cost from the users and the users shared the game conditions.

나. 상품권판매업자인 ◇◇테크 주식회사(이하'◇◇테크)는 원고에게 주식회사 ■■진흥이 발행한 상품권을 2006.1.경 12,000장, 2006.2.경 11,000장, 2006.3.경 상품권 17,000장 합계 40,000장을 판매하였다고, 2006.4.경 재단법인 □□개발원(이하'□□개발원')에게 보고하였다.

C. The Defendant calculated the amount of merchandise coupon payments by multiplying the quantity of merchandise coupon purchased by the Plaintiff with gift certificates by the face value 5,00 won per gift certificate per gift certificate per gift certificate per gift certificate, calculated the value-added tax base by dividing it by 105%, and by 1.1, which is the aggregate ratio of value-added tax and value-added tax, and imposed value-added tax 2.769.50 won on the Plaintiff on April 8, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statement in subparagraphs 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the game of this case started business from March 1, 2006, and that the disposition of this case based on different facts is unlawful, although no fact was found to have purchased merchandise coupons from △△ Park.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In principle, the burden of proving the authenticity of the estimation data under the Value-Added Tax Act exists on the tax authority. However, although evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Plaintiff purchased merchandise coupons from △△△△ Park, the Plaintiff stated the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, it is not sufficient to recognize that △△ Park sold merchandise coupons to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the instant disposition calculated on the premise that △△△△△ Park Park sold merchandise coupons to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

①상품권 매입수량(을 제2호증)은 상품권 발행업체가 경품용 상품권 지정 승인 및 사후감독 업무를 담당하고 있는 □□개발원에게 상품권 판매현황 자료를 정기적으로 신고한 발행・판매 내역이다. 그러나 상품권 발행업자인 주식회사 ■■진흥에 의하면, □□개발원에서 자료제출을 요구한 목적은 경품용 상품권 시장의 유통흐름 파악이어서 대부분 총판들이 거래처 노출을 피하기 위하여 거래처를 축소하여 허위로 제출한 경우가 많았고, 게임산업개발원에 제출되었던 총판과 게임제공업소의 거래관계는 부정확하였다고 밝히고 있다.

(2) A merchandise coupon issuer shall submit the performance of the issuance, distribution, redemption, and destruction of merchandise coupons, detailed data of each transaction, and the details of chain stores, etc. to the designated agency each quarter, and may revoke the designation of merchandise coupons if they are violated. However, in light of the fact that a merchandise coupon issuer is merely a merchandise coupon issuer, and the merchandise coupon issuer does not bear such duty, and that a merchandise coupon issuer did not investigate the authenticity of the report made by the merchandise coupon issuer, and that there was a lack of awareness as to whether value-added tax was imposed on the sales of merchandise coupons at the time, it is insufficient to conclude that the above reported data are true

③ GinB stated that ○○○○○○○ Group’s husband of △△○○ Group’s representative director made a statement that there was no fact in selling gift certificates to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was aware of the contact address of KimB through Defendant employees, and the Plaintiff appears to have come to come up with KimB for the first time through this, and there was controversy as to whether the tax authorities at the time did not know that the data reported to the △△ Development Institute were to be used as tax data, and whether the gift certificates provided as gift certificates should be imposed. KimB attempted to correct the sales status of gift certificates to the game room companies other than the Plaintiff. Although KimB did not record the Plaintiff’s business registration number, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s business registration number is false in light of the fact that the gift coupon issuer’s confirmation of the Plaintiff’s business registration number or the possibility of making a statement due to mistake in KimB, etc.

④ The Plaintiff received the instant game site on January 10, 2006, and obtained the registration of distribution-related distributor from the head of ○○○ on January 25, 2006. Although it appears that the Plaintiff was able to operate the game site at least on January 25, 2006, the purchase volume of merchandise coupons at least 12,00 as the purchase volume of merchandise coupons around January 2006 is more easily than the purchase volume of merchandise coupons around February 2006.

⑤ From March 1, 2006 to March 1, 2007, the plaintiff registered a business operator with respect to the game of this case, and closed the business from March 1, 2006 to December 2006. In light of the fact that although the sales of gift certificates was reported on continuous sales of gift certificates, the sales of gift certificates (certificate No. 2) can only be reported on the sales of gift certificates from January 2006 to March 2006. The plaintiff purchased gift certificates after April 1, 2006 without reporting the sales of gift certificates to the designation authority, including the △ Development Institute, as well as the fact that the plaintiff did not report the sales of gift certificates sales of gift certificates to the designation authority, it is insufficient to recognize the accuracy of the sales of gift certificates (certificate No. 2).

3.In conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.