The propriety of the taxation without confirming the authenticity of the document prepared at the time of the investigation alone;

In light of the fact that the certificate prepared at the time of the initial tax investigation is prepared and that the witness stated that it was prepared on the basis of the operational log while the witness stated that it was wrong, taxation is legitimate because the contents of the certificate are reliable.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

피고가 2005. 4. 1. 원고에 대하여 한,부가가치세 2000년 1기분 8,927,030원, 2기 분2,949,170원, 2001년 1기분 4,828,590원, 2가뷴 2,546,830원, 2003년 1기분 1,1024,750원의 부과처분을 취소한다.

1. Details of disposition;

A. An operator who has registered his business under the name of "○○○○ in the name of the wife," and operated a transportation brokerage business in Gangwon-do on December 31, 2002. The Plaintiff is a business operator who closed his business on April 1, 1998 or February 12, 2001, with the trade name "○○○○○○" on the trade name of "○○○○○" on the part of the wife, and registered his business as an "○○○○" on the part of "○○○○" on the part of "○○○○○○" on the part of "○○○○○○○○" on the part of the wife, but did not perform any business registration between February 13, 201 and June 30, 203.

B. While the head of the ○○○ Tax Office did not transport the goods to Kim○○ and Lee○○, etc., in the course of conducting a tax investigation in relation to the issuance of false sales tax invoices on the issuance of false sales tax invoices, he/she prepared a written confirmation that ○○○ may introduce and transport part of the transaction volume of Kim○, etc. to the designated borrowers including the Plaintiff, etc., but the borrower did not issue the sales tax invoices to the transaction partner in order to prevent the borrower from imposing taxes, he/she notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the Plaintiff did not report the sales, even if he/she transported the goods to Kim○, Lee○, and Lee○○, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not issue the sales tax invoices to the transaction partner, etc.

C. Accordingly, on April 1, 2005, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of value-added tax equivalent to KRW 43,430,000 for the first term portion in 200, KRW 15,020 for the second term portion in 200, KRW 25,780,000 for the second term portion, KRW 14,300 for the second term portion in 2001, KRW 7,400 for the first term portion in 2003, KRW 105.930,000 for the first term portion in 203 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

D. On June 29, 2005, the plaintiff appealed against the defendant on June 29, 2005, and the defendant made a decision on July 27, 2005 to the effect that since the plaintiff's assertion was reasonable, it should re-examine the actual transaction and correct the tax base and tax amount according to the result (hereinafter "the re-examination decision of this case"), and on July 29, 2005, the decision of the plaintiff reached the decision.

E. On October 24, 2005, the Defendant determined that the initial findings of reexamination were legitimate as a result of the reexamination according to its decision of reexamination as above, and notified the Plaintiff of the results of reexamination to that effect.

F. Accordingly, on October 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service. The National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request on December 29, 2005 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for review was filed against the Plaintiff for the lapse of 90 days, which is the period for filing the request for review, from July 29, 2005, on which the Plaintiff was notified of the decision of reexamination of the instant case.

G. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 20, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5, Eul 2.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

In relation to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant disposition against the Defendant, although the Defendant made the instant reinvestigation decision and notified the results of reinvestigation on October 24, 2005, the instant disposition was revoked or corrected by itself, not just by itself, and thus, the Plaintiff’s petition for review with the National Tax Service on October 28, 2005, which was 90 days from July 29, 2005, the date when the Defendant was notified of the instant reinvestigation decision, filed a request for review with the Defendant on July 29, 2005, which was 90 days from July 29, 2005, and thus, the Plaintiff’s petition for review was dismissed as illegal,

B. Determination

A disposition to reduce a tax base and amount of tax is not the initial disposition, separate from the initial disposition, but the substance of the disposition is a disposition that changes the initial disposition of taxation and brings a favorable effect to the taxpayer as to the partial revocation of the tax amount. Thus, where the decision of correction is not yet revoked, and the remaining part of the disposition is illegal, the object of an appeal litigation is the remaining part of the original disposition that is not revoked by the decision of correction, and the decision of correction is not the object of an appeal litigation. In this case, whether the legitimate procedure of appeal was completed and the period for filing an appeal was observed should also be determined based on the initial disposition. This legal principle applies to the case of a decision of correction made by the National Tax Tribunal without specifying the legitimate amount of tax and presenting the correction criteria and allowing the relevant administrative agency to determine the specific tax base and amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du1021, May 28, 199; 96Nu10689, Oct. 24, 197; 96Nu369636, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff appealed against the disposition of this case on June 29, 2005, and the defendant raised an objection against the defendant on July 27, 2005, and the defendant is deemed to have reasonable grounds for the plaintiff's assertion as to the whole disposition of this case on July 27, 2005. Thus, the re-audit decision of this case to the effect that re-audit of actual transaction and correction of the tax base and tax amount should be made according to the result of re-audit, and that the decision of this case reached the plaintiff on July 29, 2005, although the result of re-audit was deemed to be legitimate as a result of the re-audit, the result of re-audit to the effect that the plaintiff'

However, unlike the fact that, where a decision of reinvestigation is made in which part of the disposition of reinvestigation is expected to be revoked or corrected in the procedure of raising an objection, it shall be determined on the basis of the date of the decision of reinvestigation as to whether the legitimate period of the request for reexamination has been observed as to the remaining part of the remaining part, the decision of reinvestigation in this purport cannot be deemed as accepting at least part of the plaintiff's objection in its content, and ultimately, it shall be deemed that the defendant made a final decision to dismiss the plaintiff's objection on October 24, 2004, which notified the result

Therefore, in such a case, the plaintiff can make a request for review to the National Tax Service within 90 days from the date of notification of the results of reexamination. Thus, the plaintiff's request for review filed on October 25, 2004 was filed within the above period, and thus, the decision to dismiss the request for review filed by the National Tax Service on the ground of the lapse of the period of request for review is unlawful. Therefore, the defendant's

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the plaintiff did not register business during the pertinent period of the disposition of this case and there was no transaction between ○○ Logistics since it did not conduct business and ○○ Logistics, the defendant did not confirm the authenticity of the document prepared by ○○○ at the time of the investigation of ○○ Logistics on the basis of a false document prepared by ○○ for light of her own tax burden, and the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On June 18, 2004, on the basis of the above tax investigation conducted on June 18, 2004, the YO prepared a letter of confirmation to the effect that 12 persons including the Plaintiff, etc., who are actual traders, arrange the transportation to the Plaintiff, etc. and pay the price for the transportation, attaching a monthly statement on the basis of the operation log in which he had recorded and managed (5-2, 3).

(2) On June 23, 2005, after undergoing a tax investigation, on June 23, 2005, YO prepared a written confirmation (A 9-2) stating that the part concerning the plaintiff related to the plaintiff related to the plaintiff related to the plaintiff was erroneous. However, the statement prepared at the time of the tax investigation after attending the court as a witness of this court is prepared on the basis of the operation log on which the content of transportation arrangement for the plaintiff, etc. is recorded, and some of the statement is written by mistake, but it is testified that the part cannot be clearly divided.

(3) On the other hand, even though ○○○ submitted the above operational log to the Defendant at the time of tax investigation, it is not stored in the tax office, but it is not confirmed as to whether it was submitted.

[Evidence] Gap 9-2, Eul 2, Eul 5-1 to 4,6, witness senior ○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

As seen earlier, the statement attached to the letter of confirmation prepared by ○○ after undergoing a tax investigation was prepared to specify relatively specific transaction amount with respect to a specific business entity, such as the Plaintiff, etc., and the fact that ○○○ subsequently prepared a letter of confirmation that the said letter was written in error with the Plaintiff, and that some of the statements were written in this court while making the testimony at this court and stated that it was written in mistake. However, in light of the fact that the above statement is consistently stated that the above statement was prepared based on the operation date, it can be ratified without the copy of the business operator, etc., if the Plaintiff, etc. conducts the forwarding business which was made through transportation brokerage from ○○ during the pertinent disposition period, and received the transport payment, the fact that the value-added tax was not filed.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Relevant statutes

Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The value-added tax amount payable by an entrepreneur under Article 17 (1) (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods or services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, except in such case as prescribed by

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be

(6) Matters necessary for the scope of the input tax amount not deducted under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.