Whether the actual owner of the omitted sales of value-added tax is the person.

The first disposition is just because the details of the transaction of goods between door-to-door seller and door-to-door seller who can support the claim, the details of the after-door settlement, the financial data, and the details of the transaction of goods with another company.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period of November 1, 2005 by 12,483,190 won, value-added tax for the second period of 201 by 12.789.80 won, value-added tax for the second period of 2002 by 11,391,910 won, value-added tax for the second period of 2002 by 9,465,340 won, value-added tax for the second period of 2003 by 6,224,80 won, value-added tax for the second period of 203 by 4,79,300 won, value-added tax for the second period of 203 by 4,742,090 won, value-added tax for the second period of 204 by 3,671,650 won, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After completing business registration with the trade name "○○○" on May 23, 1997, the Plaintiff is running a retail business of health auxiliary food (door-to-door sales) on three floors of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○ Building.

B. The defendant is merely 107,901,81,818 won when the amount reported by the plaintiff as sales from January 2001 to February 2004. Since during the above period the plaintiff reached 524,416,414 won in total, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff omitted a report on the sales amount corresponding to the difference, and shall be added to all of them as sales. On November 1, 2005, a penalty tax shall be added to the amount of the value-added tax calculated by deducting the previously paid tax amount from 12,483,190 won in 201, 201, 12,789,880 won in total, 11,391, 910 won in 202, 2002, 204, 207, 2004, 204, 204, 207, 2004, 2004 won in each of the instant case.

C. On April 25, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on April 25, 2006, but received a decision of dismissal on September 19, 2006. In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1 through 8, Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Related Acts and subordinate statutes

○ Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and 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 a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

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

○ Decision and rectification Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where, in the final tax return, the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the list of the total tax invoice by buyer submitted is not entered or entered differently from the fact.

B. Determination

(1) In general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements must be borne by the defendant who is the taxation authority. However, even if there is no direct evidence as to the facts of taxation requirements, if it is possible to presume the existence of taxation requirements based on an indirect factual basis that can be reasonably explained in light of the empirical rule based on the indirect factual basis, etc., the existence of such proof should be proven. Thus, inasmuch as indirect facts that can be acknowledged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless it is proven that there are special circumstances that can exclude the application of the empirical rule as in the pertinent case of the disposition imposing tax, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is an unlawful disposition that does not meet the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

(2) However, when collecting the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 3-2, it is recognized that the financial settlement center and credit card sales on the Plaintiff’s name of business registration were as listed in the table No. 1, No. 2, each quarter below, and unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the above ground payment and credit card sales were all deposited into the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s sales amount reported at the time of the return of value-added tax was as listed below No. 4, and therefore, it is presumed that the Plaintiff omitted the report of sales on the amount corresponding to

Taxation Period

(1) Amount of street;

(2) Credit cards.

(3) Class 1 + ②

(4) Plaintiff

Amount of initial return

(5) Difference (III-No.4)

201.1

65,682,772

12,469,00

78,151,772

11,751,818

66,399,954

201.2

72,038,609

6,470,000

78,508,609

6,976,800

71,531,809

1, 2002

69,030,145

16,552,000

85,582,145

18,472,200

67,109,945

2002

60,015,781

16,950,000

76,965,781

18,010,000

58,955,781

1, 2003

48,524,454

11,450,000

59,974,454

13,830,000

46,144,454

2003

38,785,627

8,100,000

46,885,627

9,791,000

37,094,627

1, 2004

38,792,390

20,744,000

59,536,390

21,269,000

38,267,390

2042

19,963,636

18,848,000

38,811,636

7,801,000

31,010,636

guidance.

412,833,414

111,583,00

524,416,414

107,901,818

416,514,596

(unit: won)

(3) As to this, the Plaintiff recruited 20 door-to-door salesmen, including Kim○, etc., and offered them to sell health-related food handled by the Plaintiff. The door-to-door salesmen supplied goods from other companies and sold them under the name of the Plaintiff, and they are prohibited from selling the sales amount due to the relationship in which they are not reported to credit card member stores. In addition, they issued a credit card transfer slip with "○○○○○○" in which they did not report to the credit card member stores, and then settled accounts with the Plaintiff in cash in the future. Ultimately, the Defendant’s actual sales amount out of KRW 416,514,596, which is deemed to be the omission of the Plaintiff’s sales amount, is limited to KRW 416,60,60, and the remainder is not the Plaintiff’s sales amount because the above door-to-door salesmen purchased goods at a different place. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above assertion is insufficient to accept, as it is not sufficient to support the above assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.