It is insufficient to recognize that the gross sales profit ratio exceeds the gross sales profit ratio of the same type of business when the purchase tax invoice is denied in whole.

It is insufficient to recognize that the full amount of sales is a virtual park only with the data submitted by the Defendant, such as that the gross sales profit ratio exceeds 50.17%, and the gross sales profit ratio of the same type of business exceeds 6.6% to 7.1%.

The deferment of collection and the withdrawal of imposition due to the impossibility of service under Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act, of a notice on change in income amount due to disposal of income under Article 192 of

2015Guhap53644 Disposition of revocation of global income tax, etc.

1.A

2. BB of a stock company

1. The director of theCC;

2. The director of the D Tax Office.

November 1, 2016

December 27, 2016

1. The part of the lawsuit in this case seeking cancellation of notice of change in income amount shall be dismissed.

2. The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 0,00,000,000, and KRW 000,000,000 for the business year 201 against Plaintiff BB on December 13, 2012 shall be revoked by the director of the tax office on the corporate tax of KRW 200,00,000 for the business year 2012.

3. On April 25, 2014, the disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 0,000,000,000, which was rendered by the head of the Defendant DD Tax Office to Plaintiff A on April 25, 2011, shall be revoked.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiff BB and DefendantCC is 30% of them, and the remainder 70% of them is borne by Plaintiff BB and Defendant DD director, and the part arising between Plaintiff A and Defendant D director is borne by Defendant D director of the tax office.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the director of the tax office and the decision of the court below that the notice of change in the amount of income of KRW 00,000,000,000, which was made on November 21, 2012 against Plaintiff BB on November 21, 2011 is revoked, and that the disposition of imposition of KRW 0,000,000,000, which was made against Plaintiff DD on March 12, 2013 by the director of the tax office or the director of the tax office of Defendant DD, revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 0,00,000,000 for global income tax for the year 201 (the issues concerning the date of disposition stated in the purport

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff BB (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is a company established on October 26, 2010 in order to run petroleum, lubrication sales business, wholesale and retail business (the opening date is November 1, 2010 and the closing date is April 1, 2012) and Plaintiff Western is the representative of the Plaintiff Company who was appointed as the director of the Plaintiff Company on March 21, 201.

B. While operating gas stations at the head office and three points, the Plaintiff Company received tax invoices of KRW 00 billion in the business year 201 from EE Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Energy”) and FF Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF Petroleum,” together with EE Energy”) and filed a return on corporate tax for the business year 2011 by including the value of KRW 00 billion in the business year 2012 and in the cost. The Plaintiff Company received tax invoices of KRW 000,000 in the total value of supply in the business year 201 and 2012 from GG, H, etc. in addition to each other. The Plaintiff Company received tax invoices of KRW 00,000 in the total value of supply in the business year 201 and 2012 from GG, H, etc.

C. From July 2012 to November 2012, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that a tax invoice received from each of the parties to the instant transaction is a tax invoice received without real transaction; and (b) deemed that it was a tax invoice received from each of the parties to the instant transaction without real transaction, excluded the amount from the income amount for the business year of 2011; (c) disposed of the relevant amount as the bonus of the Plaintiff Western; (d) notified the Plaintiff Seocho of the change in the income amount (hereinafter referred to as the “instant notice of change in the income amount”); (e) notified the disposition authority to rectify the amount of income tax for the business year of 2011 to 200,000,000,000 corporate tax for the business year of 200,000,000,000,000 or less, and (e) notified the Plaintiff’s global income tax for 30,000,000.

1) The Plaintiff Company stated in the complaint that “the date of disposition of corporate tax against the Plaintiff Company was December 1, 2012 and December 3, 2012,” but according to the cause of the complaint and the statement of the decision of the Tax Tribunal No. 1, the date stated in the claim is deemed to be clerical error.

2) The Plaintiff Company stated the date of disposition on February 13, 2012 in its purport of the written complaint and written application for modification of the purport of the claim, but according to the written statement Nos. 14 through 17, the date of disposition is March 12, 2013. Thus, the date of written application for modification of the purport of the claim appears to be a clerical error.

E. On March 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the imposition of the above corporate tax and the imposition of the first income tax, and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for the trial on December 30, 2013, but was dismissed on November 10, 2014.

F. Meanwhile, on March 31, 2013, after the first imposition disposition of income tax was taken on the grounds of Article 16(1) and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, Defendant DD head of the tax office issued a decision of ex officio deferment of collection on the grounds of “viral and non-property,” but withdrawn the decision of imposition on May 13, 2013. On April 25, 2014, based on Article 16(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, Defendant DD head of the tax office again imposed KRW 0,00,000,000 for global income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “the second imposition disposition of income tax”), and the said disposition of imposition of corporate tax and “the instant disposition of imposition” collectively.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14 through 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part seeking revocation of notice of change in the amount of income in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

The notification of change in the amount of income to a person to whom income belongs under the proviso to Article 192(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013) is not a direct legal change in the legal status of the person to whom the income is attributed, and thus, cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du9267, Mar. 26, 2015). In such cases, the notification of change in the amount of income to a resident who received income disposition by the tax authority is merely for the purpose of giving the resident an opportunity to report the additional tax base of global income and to voluntarily pay the amount of income, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the said corporation is liable to withhold taxes. Thus, it is unlawful for the corporation to seek the cancellation of the notification of change in amount on the premise that the notification of change in amount of income is an administrative disposition against the corporation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24579, Sept.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 1 evidence Nos. 1 and 1, it is recognized by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, who has conducted a criminal investigation against the Plaintiff Company, on November 21, 2012, that the Plaintiff Company provided notification of change in the amount of income to the Plaintiff Company pursuant to the proviso of Article 192(1) of the former Income Tax Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office provided notification of change in the amount of income to the Plaintiff Company. The purport of the claim of the Plaintiff Company appears to be that the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office requested cancellation by deeming the notification of change in amount of income to the Plaintiff Company as the notification of change in amount of income to the Plaintiff Company. According to the above legal principle, the Plaintiff Company cannot seek cancellation of

3. Defenses by the director of the tax office prior to the merits of the case.

Defendant DD Head of the tax office’s primary income tax imposition that Defendant DD Head of the tax office imposed on Plaintiff DD on March 12, 2013 against Plaintiff SA on May 13, 2013 does not have any interest in the lawsuit, and thus, it does not have any interest in the lawsuit. In addition, Defendant DD Head of the tax office’s secondary income tax imposition that Defendant DD Head of the tax office re-exempts Plaintiff SA with the same amount on April 25, 2014 without undergoing the procedure of the trial, is inappropriate, and thus, Plaintiff DD Head of the tax office’s lawsuit should be dismissed.

According to the details of the above disposition, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 14, and 22, and the purport of the whole arguments, defendant DD head of the tax office initially issued the first disposition of income tax to plaintiff DD head of the tax office on the ground that "the first disposition of income tax was made to plaintiff DD and it was missing and non-property," and such cancellation of imposition is made in cases where it is acknowledged that it is impossible to secure the collection of the deferred national tax pursuant to Article 16 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the first disposition of income tax is no longer existing upon the cancellation of the imposition by the defendant DD head of the tax office. Accordingly, the prior defense of the main part of this part is with merit.

However, on April 25, 2014, the head of the competent tax office again imposed the second income tax pursuant to Article 16(3) of the National Tax Collection Act. The second imposition of income tax is a new one different from the first imposition of income tax withdrawn earlier, but it is identical to the grounds for the second imposition, and according to the evidence No. 18, the head of the competent tax office knew that the first imposition of income tax is in progress upon the Plaintiff’s request to the Tax Tribunal for the first imposition of income tax at the time of the second imposition of income tax. The head of the competent tax office could correct the first imposition of income tax by claiming such withdrawal of imposition and the second imposition of income tax without such measures, but he could again seek revocation of the first imposition of income tax by filing a request for the second imposition of income tax with the Tax Tribunal, and even if the first imposition of income tax was made to the Plaintiff, it is not possible for the Plaintiff to seek revocation of the first imposition of income tax without such measures to seek revocation of the first imposition of income tax, the second imposition of the first imposition of income tax to the Plaintiff’s.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiff Company purchased actual oil from each of the instant transaction partners in order to sell oil to the general consumers, and has transaction specifications (the pre-delivery table), tax invoices, and daily closing report, and the purchase price also paid to the Plaintiff through the financial institution. In addition, the Plaintiff Company sold oil to the general consumers. The most of the sales amount was the credit card sales, and there is little room for an excessive appropriation of the sales amount. The Defendants also recognized the Plaintiff Company’s data. If the sales amount is recognized, the corresponding sales amount should be recognized. Therefore, it is unlawful that the DefendantCC Head of the tax office imposed corporate tax by adding the entire supply amount from each of the instant transaction partners to deductible expenses, and it is not clear that the person to whom the oil purchase price belongs is the transaction partner who supplied the Plaintiff, and thus, it is also unlawful to impose secondary income tax imposed on the Plaintiff Company by the director of the tax office on the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the background of the above disposition, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3 through No. 6, evidence No. 8 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) The sales amount for each taxable period of the Plaintiff Company’s gas station are as follows:

(unit: Won, value of supply)

Classification

1, 2011

2011 Second Period

1, 2012

Consolidateds

Head Office

4,962

7,113

3,066

15,141

Pluri Points

2,732

7,901

2,602

13,235

Sub-astronomical Points

2,526

5,914

1,801

10,241

Points of Subu Government

0

5,581

2,267

7,848

Total

10,220

26,509

9,736

46,465

2) Petroleum purchaser and purchase amount by gas station on the account books of the Plaintiff Company are as listed below:

(unit: Won, value of supply)

Classification

EE Energy

Trvin petroleum

GG

H H

Total

Head Office

3,814

1,369

5,775

4,458

15,416

Pluri Points

4,647

1,471

4,589

2,139

12,846

Sub-astronomical Points

6,125

1,291

0

2,415

9,831

Points of Subu Government

2,212

1,501

1,849

1,929

7,491

Total

16,798

5,632

12,213

10,941

45,584

The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 1.5 million from EE Energy in 201, KRW 11.31.6 million from 201, KRW 2011, KRW 3712 from FF Petroleum, and KRW 1.92 million from 2012 (No.6).

3) On August 2012, 2012, the director of the Central Tax Office of China filed a complaint with EE Energy; the director of the District Tax Office of II filed a complaint with FF Petroleum on July 2012; and the director of the District Tax Office issued or received a tax invoice without any real transaction.

4) On August 2, 2012, the J Director of the J Tax Office accused the Plaintiff Company’s answer points, and the K K Director of the K Tax Office accused the Plaintiff Company’s additional points on August 27, 2012 as the Plaintiff Company’s breach of its duty to receive each tax invoice.

5) The head office of the Plaintiff Company was inspected by the Institute on March 7, 2012. Of three samples taken, the ingredients of pseudo petroleum products were detected in one sample. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company, the representative of the Plaintiff Company, was given a summary order of KRW 5 million at the Seoul Eastern District Court on July 20, 2012 due to the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.

D. Determination

1) In an administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the legality of disposition and the existence of taxation requirements. Therefore, in principle, the Plaintiff’s burden of proof as to the instant taxation disposition based on the fact that the tax invoice received from each business partner of the instant case was arising from the processing transaction is also against the Defendants, who are the tax authority. As such, the Defendants must prove the falsity of the tax invoice that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction based on direct evidence or all the circumstances. However, in a case where the Defendants provided considerable proof as to this point to the extent that they reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that the Plaintiffs, who are the taxpayers disputing the illegality of disposition, are in the position of easy presentation of relevant evidence and materials.

2) According to the evidence No. 6, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, who has conducted a criminal investigation against the Plaintiff Company, shall, as a result of analyzing data on credit card sales, most of the sales of the Plaintiff Company’s small amount of credit card sales, and as a result of analyzing data on credit card sales, confirm the normal transaction and the response cost for ordinary sales. However, he denied the total amount of the supply value on the ground that the Plaintiff Company did not present the details of purchase of non-data that can replace the supply value under the tax

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if a tax invoice received from each customer of this case may constitute a different tax invoice from the facts, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no actual transaction. The evidence alone submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the transaction with each customer of this case was a wholly processed transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the transaction was a wholly processed transaction.

A) According to the aforementioned factual basis, where the purchase cost that the Plaintiff Company purchased from each of the instant transaction partners is entirely denied, the average gross sales profit ratio of the Plaintiff Company during the business year from 2011 to 2012 exceeds 50.17% (the sales amount is KRW 46,465 million, and the sales cost is KRW 23,154 million, excluding the supply price from each of the instant transaction partners, and the gross sales profit is KRW 23,154 million, and the gross sales profit is KRW 23,311 million).

B) Even upon examining the sales amount by taxable period of value-added tax, in the first period of 2011, the sales amount of KRW 5,484 million out of the sales amount is 10,22 million compared to the sales amount in the second period of 2011, the sales amount of KRW 15,028 million out of the sales amount is 26,509,000 in the second period of 201, and in the first period of 2012, the sales amount of KRW 9,736 million out of the sales amount is 9,736 million in the case of the first period of 201.

C) In principle, the oil sales business is established in proportion to the quantity of the petroleum purchased in comparison with the general manufacturing business. As such, in determining the business income of an oil sales business operator, the total revenue is recognized by the oil sales business operator as the amount reported as the oil sales price and, in calculating necessary expenses, if the same quantity of oil is excluded from the necessary expenses, the oil sales business operator sells the unpurchaseed oil. Therefore, it can be presumed that there was at least the quantity of the total quantity sold, barring special circumstances, such as that the stock quantity carried over in the previous year exceeds the total stock quantity of the business operator, or the processed or sold quantity was adjusted, or the sales price was adjusted.

D) If we look at the results of the fact-finding on the transaction statement (bill prior to shipment), tax invoice, transaction statement, and transport confirmation document submitted by the Plaintiff Company, and SK Energy Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff Company's payment of oil from the Plaintiff Company on the date of receiving oil from each of the instant transaction parties, it is recognized that the Plaintiff Company deposited the money that the Plaintiff Company would have seen as the oil purchase price into the bank account in the name of each of the instant transaction parties. There is no evidence to support that the money deposited by the Plaintiff Company was returned to the Plaintiffs, and there is no reason to support that the money deposited by the Plaintiff Company was returned to the Plaintiffs, and it is not recognized that the Plaintiff Company's payment of the money was made by fraudulent means due to the lack of evidence to support that there was a public offering of false tax invoices between the Plaintiffs and the instant transaction parties.

E) Even if some of the samples of the quality inspection of the Plaintiff’s head office found pseudo petroleum products ingredients in certain samples (Article 10 of the above Act appears to be KRW 35,000,000, and KRW 7,000,000,000,000,000, which were punished by the summary order) cannot be denied solely on the ground that the sales cost of the Plaintiff Company related to the tax invoice received from each of the transaction parties of the instant case cannot be denied.

3) Therefore, the materials submitted by the Defendants alone are insufficient to recognize the sales cost denied by the Defendants as the entire virtual park. Furthermore, the amount actually paid for the purchase of oil among the above sales cost is not included in the calculation of losses, and thus, it cannot be disposed of as a representative bonus. Therefore, the instant disposition of taxation in this regard is unlawful. However, even if the sales cost denied by the Defendants includes some of the virtual park, the amount cannot be specified, and the amount cannot be calculated and only part of it cannot be revoked by calculating the lawful tax amount. Thus, the instant disposition of taxation in this case is entirely revoked.

5. Conclusion

In the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking the cancellation of the notice of change in the amount of income is dismissed as unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are accepted for the reasons, and the costs of lawsuit are shared by the original and the defendant according to the winning ratio. It is decided as per Disposition